• - - -,. - -- .. ------.- .._- - •

-L •• _.,. .. I

I

I

•

•

F 737 .G5 E584 1993

JAN 31 2007

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Interior

National Park Service

Rocky Mountain Region and Glacier National Park

November 1993 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MANAGEMENT OF BACKCOUNTRY CHALETS GLACIER NATIONAL PARK FLATHEAD COUNTY, MONTANA

Summary

The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to decide the long-term future of Granite Park and Sperry chalets as visitor-use facilities. Sperry chalet was completed in 1913, and Granite Park chalet was completed in 1914 by the Great Northern Railway, as part of a system of seven backcountry lodging accommodations for Glacier. At that time, visitor access was primarily by horseback, and the chalets fell into disuse and neglect with the war and the shift to automobile use in the early 1930s. By 1950, of the original seven, only Granite Park and Sperry chalets remained and they were used through 1992, when they were temporarily closed because of regulatory changes that had occurred since their construction. Both chalets have substandard sewage and water systems, inadequate life-safety facilities, and suffer from a combination of high overhead and operating costs and minimal revenue-producing capability to sustain the traditional visitor service. In order to accomplish the needed improvements, substantial assistance from the private sector will be required.

Four alternatives were examined for each of the two chalets and were based on the various possible solutions to the water and sewer problems, with level of use being dictated by the services available. Alternatives were broadly categorized: no wastewater generation (caretaker status), water only provided (overnight shelter with only drinking and dish-washing water available), and traditional service (alternatives 3: traditional service with composting toilets [the NPS preferred alternative), and 4: traditional service with flush toilets). To avoid confusion over which alternative constitutes no action, both an alternative representing the former level of service (alternative 4: traditional service with flush toilets) and a closure alternative (alternative 1: caretaker status) were evaluated. Alternatives for both chalets were similar, but because Sperry receives less day visitation that Granite Park, the required sewage treatment facilities there are smaller.

The environmental consequences of the alternatives as well as the results of public involvement/ consultation/coordination to this point are documented in this draft EA. Under all alternatives, chalet improvements would occur within existing disturbed habitat and development zones, with the exception of a new water delivery pipeline route at Granite Park and a wastewater treatment system at Sperry. None of the alternatives considered would expand facilities or provide for a level of visitor use beyond that occurring prior to the 1992 chalet closures. There are no cumulative effects anticipated under any of the alternatives considered. All of the alternatives considered would eliminate both the discharge of sewage effluent directly to inadequately functioning leach fields and the previous necessity to release septic system bio-solids to exposed drying beds. The existing developed area at Granite Park affects about 4 acres. Improvements there would result in new permanent impacts to approximately 6,500 square feet of soil and vegetation, approximately 5,500 square feet of which would be rehabilitated following installation of the water and sewage facilities. Total area disturbed that would not be rehabilitated would be between 244 and 1,400 square feet, depending on the alternative selected. The existing developed area at Sperry affects approximately 10 acres. Improvements there would result in new impacts to a previously undisturbed area of approximately 3,500 to 5,400 square feet, and 6,1 00 square feet of previously disturbed area. Approximately 8,600 to 10,600 square feet of this area would be rehabilitated, while 700 to 1,000 square feet would be permanently altered. None of the proposed alternatives would be expected to have any long-term adverse effects on Glacier's resident or migratory threatened or endangered species, beyond those that may already exist due to historical visitor use. All of the alternatives would result in long-term positive net effects on the area's soil, water quality, and vegetative and wildlife resources.

Address Comments to:

Superintendent Glacier National Park West Glacier, Montana 59936-0128

ii CONTENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 NEED FOR THE PROJECT ...... , ...... 1 ISSUES ...... 4 CONCESSIONS ...... 4 COSTS ...... 4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 4 DEVELOPMENT ...... 5 Access...... 5 Utility Systems ...... 5 Sewage Treatment ...... 5 Water systems ...... 6 Safety Considerations ...... 6 Stabilization/Structural Repairs ...... 7 NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 8 VISITOR USE ...... 9 ISSUES NOT ANALVZED ...... 9 Chalet Closure ...... 9 Life-Safety Issues ...... 10 Fees ...... ·...... 10 Level of Services ...... 11 Effluent ...... 11 Applicability of Public Health Standards ...... 11 Impact Trade-off ...... 11

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ...... 17 GRANITE PARK CHALET ...... 17 ALTERNATIVE 1 -- CARETAKER STATUS ...... 17 Sewage Treatment ...... 17 Water System ...... 20 ALTERNATIVE 2-- SHELTER ...... 20 Accessibility ...... , .... 20 Sewage Treatment ...... 20 Water System ...... 21 Power ...... 25 ALTERNATIVE 3 - TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH COMPOSTING TOILETS ...... 25 Sewage Treatment ...... 25 Water System ...... 25 Power ...... 25 ALTERNATIVE 4- TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH FLUSH TOILETS ...... 27 Sewage Treatment ...... 27 Water System ...... 28 Power ...... 28 ALTERNATIVE ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ...... 28 SPERRY CHALET ...... 39 ALTERNATIVE 1 -- CARETAKER STATUS ...... 39

iii Sewage Treatment ...... 39 Water System ...... 39 ALTERNATIVE 2-- SHELTER ...... 39 Fire Protection ...... 39 Accessibility ...... 40 Sewage Treatment ...... 40 Water System ...... 44 Power ...... 44 ALTERNATIVE 3 -- TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH COMPOSTING TOILETS ...... 44 Sewage Treatment ...... 44 Water System ...... 44 Power ...... 45 ALTERNATIVE 4-- TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH FLUSH TOILETS ...... 45 Sewage Treatment ...... 45 Water System ...... 45 Power ...... 45 ALTERNATIVE ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ...... 48 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ...... 55

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 57 GENERAL IMPACTS ...... 57 GRANITE PARK ...... 58 NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 58 Affected Environment ...... 58 Impacts of Alternative 1 : Caretaker Status ...... 59 Geology/Soils ...... 59 Vegetation ...... 60 Wildlife . . . . . • ...... 61 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 61 Water Quality ...... 61 Air Quality ...... 61 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter ...... 62 Geology /Soils ...... 62 Vegetation ...... 64 Wildlife ...... 64 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 65 Water Quality ...... 65 Air Quality ...... 66 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ...... 66 Geology/Soils ...... 66 Vegetation ...... 67 Wildlife ...... 67 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 67 Water Quality ...... 67 Air Quality ...... 67 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . . . . 68 Geology /Soils ...... 68 Vegetation ...... 69

iv Wildlife ...... 70 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 70 Water Quality ...... 70 Air Quality ...... 70 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 71 Affected Environment ...... 71 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status ...... 72 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter ...... 73 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ...... 73 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . . . . 74 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 77 Affected Environment ...... 77 Impacts on Local, State, or Regional Economy ...... 77 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status ...... 78 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter ...... 78 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ...... 79 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . . . . 79 VISITOR USE ...... 80 Affected Environment ...... 80 General Impacts ...... 82 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status ...... 82 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter ...... 83 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ...... 83 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . . . . 84 Cumulative Effects ...... 84 SPERRY ...... 85 NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 85 Affected Environment ...... 85 General Impacts ...... 85 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status ...... 86 Geology /Soils ...... 86 Vegetation ...... 87 Wildlife ...... 87 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 88 Water Quality ...... 88 Air Quality ...... 88 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter ...... 89 Geology /Soils ...... 89 Vegetation ...... 91 Wildlife ...... 92 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 93 Water Quality ...... 93 Air Quality ...... ·...... 93 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ...... 94 Geology /Soils ...... 94 Vegetation ...... 94

v Wildlife ...... 94 Threatened and Endangered Specie ...... 95 Water Quality ...... 95 Air Quality ...... 95 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . . . . 95 Geology/Soils ...... 96 Vegetation ...... 97 Wildlife ...... 97 Threatened and Endangered Species ...... 97 Water Quality ...... 98 Air Quality ...... 98 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 98 Affected Environment ...... 98 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status ...... 99 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter ...... 99 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ...... 100 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . . . 100 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 102 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status ...... 102 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter ...... 102 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ...... 102 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . . . 102 VISITOR USE ...... 102 General Impacts ...... 102 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status ...... 102 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter ...... 102 Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets ...... 103 Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets . . . 103

CONSULTATION/COORDINATION ...... 105

PREPARERS/REFERENCES ...... 107 PREPARERS ...... 107 REFERENCES ...... 108

APPENDICES

1: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DOCUMENTS (111) 2: COST COMPARISON BY ALTERNATIVE (123) 3: OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE (125)

vi GRAPHICS

Vicinity Map (2) Location Map (3) Granite Park Existing Conditions (18) Granite Park Alternative 1 (19) Proposed Wastewater Treatment Flow Schematic Diagram (22) Cross Section of Proposed Intermittent Sand Filter (23) Granite Park Alternative 2 (24) Granite Park Alternative (26) Granite Park Alternative 4 (30) Proposed Wastewater Treatment Flow Schematic Diagram- Flush Toilets (31) Sperry Existing Conditions (41) Sperry Alternative 1 (42) Sperry Alternative 2 (43) Sperry Alternative 3 (46) Sperry Alternative 4 (47)

TABLES

1: Issues Evaluation (12) 2: Alternatives Evaluation (32) 3: Comparison of Alternatives, Granite Park (34) 4: Comparison of Alternatives, Sperry (49) 5: Historic Resource Undertakings, Granite Park Chalet (75) 6: Overnight Use at Backcountry Chalets (81) 7: Estimated Use at Backcountry Chalets (81) 8: Historic Resource Undertakings, Sperry Chalet (1 00)

vii

PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

Sperry chalet was completed in 1913 and Granite Park chalet in 1914 by the Great Northern Railway, as part of a system of seven backcountry lodging accommodations in the park. Visitor access to the chalets at that time was primarily by horseback, following an extensive network of trails. After the construction of the Going-to-the-Sun Road in the early 1930s and the shift to automobile use by visitors, compounded by reduced visitation due to the depression and World War II, the chalets fell into disuse and neglect. By 1950 only two of them remained, and both of these were still in use through 1992, when the chalets were temporarily closed. Both chalets are now national historic landmarks.

The chalets are owned by the National Park Service (NPS) and were operated by a concessioner under a concession permit that expired in 1992. The utilities, including water and sewer, are maintained by the NPS. A horse livery concession is indirectly associated with the chalet operations because the livery provides stock and packing services to transport supplies and chalet guests.

Granite Park chalet is on an open hillside near Swiftcurrent Pass at elevation 6,640 feet, about 4 miles up the Loop trail off the Going-to-the-Sun Road and 7.6 miles from Logan Pass on the High line Trail. The chalet has twelve rooms that accommodate up to thirty-five overnight guests and is a popular lunch stop for hikers and horseback riders. The main building contains a dining room and employee and guest rooms. A second building has additional guest rooms. There is a rest room building and a double vault composting toilet. In 1992, 2,044 people stayed overnight at the chalet.

Sperry chalet is perched on a rocky ledge near the tree line at elevation 6,560 feet, just below the Continental Divide about 6 miles east of the Lake McDonald lodge developed area. The chalet is accessible only by foot or horseback. Its several buildings include a dining room, guest rooms, and rest room. The twenty sleeping rooms accommodate up to forty-two visitors per night, and 2,394 people stayed overnight at the chalet during the 1992 summer season.

NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The primary concern is that regulatory changes since the chalets' construction in 1913-1914 now make utility system operations complex and expensive. Both chalets have substandard sewage and water systems, inadequate life-safety facilities, and the combination of high overhead and operating costs and minimal revenue-producing capability to sustain the traditional visitor service provided. These problems contributed to a decision not to open the chalets in 1993; this environmental assessment (EA) will be used to decide the long-term future of the chalets as visitor-use facilities. In order to accomplish the needed improvements, substantial assistance from the private sector will be required.

1 ethbridge

-1 : z; z:m: -': .,.. :. r- ·... WATERTON \ ..,._./ LAKES k 'L, NAT'L. ~,ARK

0 10 20 30 40 50 miles .. I 0 10 20 30 40 50 kilometers

WYOMING

100 200 300 MILES VICINITY MAP GLACIER NATIONAL PARK MONTANA U.S. DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR- NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 2 GLACIER ,E~Iackte'et 'I ,li :1 'I I; Indian, Reservation

SWIFTCURRENT e \ /) MA~Y GLAC~ \ Granite Park *~\ (~ Chalet ··...... ' , ST. ~ARY : ·. RISING SUN ); i•· ./ r .•. ; POINT . _,./ /~.Ji 1\ __, er/// "':'" St·/~.,

/ \ \ \ \ ...... i ·~ ····.... \ .....i \ \ PARK

•I '!I II, :I I AST . LACIER

Lewis & Clark National Forest

LOCATION PARK BOUNDARY 10 MILES PAVED ROAD Sperry and Granite Park Chalets t:====!===~16 KILOMETERS Glacier National Park \1 11111!11111 AMTRAK United States Department of the Interior National Park Service

117 180.041 Oct 1993 I RMRO ISSUES

The preliminary list of issues was developed by the NPS planning team and released to the public in a scoping brochure. The brochure was available for public review for 45 days beginning in early May 1993. The original comment period was extended until June 11, 1993, to allow additional public comment. A total of 624 responses were received, and two public meetings were held in May, with a combined attendance of 200. The following is a description of the issues evaluated in the EA.

CONCESSIONS

Until December 31, 1992, when the permit expired, the chalets were operated by a park concessioner, Belton Chalets, Inc. The former concessioner has expressed an interest in continuing the operation. The concession operated on a 60-day season (July-August) and provided meals and overnight lodging with bedding and linen.

This process will analyze several levels of visitor services to be provided at the chalets. A determination will be made on the levels of accommodations and food services to be provided (if any) as well as the length of season. The economic feasibility of concession opportunities would be evaluated once the level-of-service decision is reached.

The Concessions Policy Act requires that a determination of whether a concession is necessary or appropriate be made prior to authorizing concession services. The act also requires that a concessioner be provided a reasonable opportunity to make a profit. All alternatives involving a concession operation will be evaluated against this criteria.

Because there is another concessioner indirectly associated with the chalet operations, the alternatives discussed should also include an analysis of impacts, if any, to the concessioners providing horseback and packing services.

COSTS

Rehabilitation, new construction, and revised operations could cause significant changes in operational costs and high construction costs. Funding will also be needed for the operation of any design solution. A cost versus benefit comparison will be needed to evaluate alternatives considered.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Both the Granite Park and Sperry chalets are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are national historic landmarks as well. The chalets are the only two remaining chalets of a system of seven designed to accommodate visitors in Glacier's backcountry. They provide for a continuation of the historic use pattern.

Archeological surveys have documented no prehistoric or historic sites in the immediate area of the chalets.

4 DEVELOPMENT

Work in the chalet areas is complicated by a very short, often inclement, construction season, generally July to mid-September, with guests arriving in July and August. However, snow has been 3 to 4 feet deep at the chalets as late as July 1.

Access

As previously discussed, access to the chalets is available only by horse or foot. This makes serving the chalets difficult, since food, supplies, equipment, and waste must be packed in and out by stock.

Early season access is dependent upon snowpack and ~rail conditions. Each year NPS trail crews shovel massive amounts of snow and use explosives to "tread" the trail to allow stock and foot access to the chalets. High snow levels and limited NPS trail crew budgets can directly affect the chalets' opening dates.

The appropriate use of helicopters for waste removal and early season supply should be evaluated.

Provisions of the Architectural Barriers Act, Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act require that access for visitors with visual, hearing, and mobility impairments be provided should the chalets be rehabilitated.

Utility Systems

An administrative compliance order was received from the state of Montana on November 3, 1992. That order requires NPS to submit a compliance plan and schedule for the construction of sewage disposal systems and the treatment of gray water at the chalets. Plans and specifications were to be submitted within 6 months, with construction complete within 1 year. The administrative compliance order cites the sewage systems at both chalets as being out of compliance with the Clean Water Act and state regulations.

In addition to overnight guests of the chalets and guests partaking of the a Ia carte meal service, the current systems are also used by day hikers, campground users, and the NPS trail crew and ranger staff occupying the nearby trail crew cabins.

The need for support facilities such as the trail cabin will remain regardless of the utility system developed for the area.

Sewage Treatment. At Sperry chalet, sewage is collected in a septic tank and the effluent is treated in a drain field system. Effluent from the drain field surfaced and ran down the cliff side below it. Although no longer the practice, bio-solids from the tank were released each fall and placed on the ground where it further decomposed. The sewer system at Granite Park is much the same as for Sperry except that the Granite Park sewage system uses a bio-solids-drying bed adjacent to the septic tank. Also the drain field at Granite Park surfaced effluent, and grizzly bears were known to dig up the ground in the drain field and roll in the bio-solids bed immediately after the fall release.

5 The park took actions during the 1992 and 1993 seasons to assure that the composting toilet was maintained and functioning properly so that it could be adequately evaluated. Based on these two years of intensive maintenance and monitoring, the NPS feels that the composting toilet is successful and is a viable alternative to consider for the treatment of human waste at the chalets. Most of the bio-solids in the composting toilet were removed early in the season, and the vaults were aerated through the summer use season. Additional concerns about the composting toilet relate to the lack of ventilation and effectiveness of the bacterial action in breaking down sewage in such a cold and limited-season subalpine area.

The Montan~ Department of Health and Environmental Sciences has determined that the existing wastewater disposal systems do not meet requirements of Montana law. Constructing and operating wastewater disposal systems to meet state requirements will be difficult. Conventional subsurface disposal systems for septic tank effluent would provide inadequate treatment due to unsuitable and shallow soils. In addition, the state legislature has enacted a new policy of "non­ degradation of state waters, • and the state is currently determining what this policy will entail. The chalets are in remote backcountry settings, where all materials must be hauled in and out by backpack, stock, or helicopter. The sites feature rugged topography and alpine weather, which can be characterized as typically cool and wet. No source of electrical power is available.

Water systems. The water supply at each chalet is collected from surface snowmelt, chlorinated and cartridge-filtered in an in-line treatment system, and stored in a metal (Sperry) or wooden (Granite Park) tank uphill from the chalet buildings. This results in an extremely limited and unpredictable water supply for both chalets. These systems frequently dry up at the end of the summer season, and water rationing is often needed to complete the use season. In years of low snowfall, water rationing is started in early August, and water may run out completely by mid­ August.

Safety Considerations

All of the chalet structures need to be rehabilitated to bring them up to applicable life-safety standards. The buildings need to be evaluated for the presence of hazardous materials such as lead paint and asbestos.

At Sperry chalet, an appropriate means of egress from the second floor needs to be provided if that floor is in use. At present, two non-connecting interior stairways are the only means of egress, and, if they were blocked by fire, jumping out a window would be the only exit alternative. Additional exits and levels of protection for the routes to these exits are critical to life and safety. Measures also need to be taken to alert and evacuate occupants through appropriate exit corridors while simultaneously initiating fire-suppression actions. These measures to alert visitors must also be designed to protect those with visual and hearing impairments.

Both chalets have thousands of cracks, seams, and penetrations in the walls and between floors. Smoke and fire would readily pass through them, overcoming guests.

There are no fire-suppression systems for fire fighting.

6 Stabilization/Structural Repairs

When structural repairs are made, the buildings are required to be renovated to provide access for visitors with mobility impairments.

Both chalets are in fair to good condition, but require structural repairs and stabilization work.

Problems at Granite Park chalet include:

• deteriorated and missing mortar in stone walls • deteriorated and nonhistoric wooden railings at front and rear of building, structurally inadequate • deteriorating wood window sashes and frames, deteriorated window glazing, and missing or nonoperational hardware • deteriorated wood· doors and door frames, missing or nonoperational door hardware • deteriorated nonhistoric roof covering, materials at end of useful life span, leaking roof, deteriorated flashing • deteriorated interior finishes on kitchen woodwork, high flame spread rating on historic materials • deteriorated and nonoperational wooden screens at windows/doors • poor security from deteriorated and nonfunctional interior and exterior lock sets • nonoperational and/or inadequate interior plumbing at sinks, does not meet current standards • deteriorated and inadequate crew room, does not meet current standards in several areas

Problems at Granite Park dormitory include:

• deteriorated nonhistoric roof covering, materials at end of useful life span, leaking roof • deteriorating wood window sash and frames, deteriorated window glazing, and missing or nonoperational hardware • deteriorated wood doors and door frames, missing or nonoperational door hardware • missing mortar in stone walls • poor security from deteriorated and nonfunctional exterior lock sets

Problems at Sperry kitchen/dining room include:

• deteriorated and historically incorrect structure at west porch, leading to possible loading failure of structure • deteriorated wood window sash and frames, deteriorated window glazing, and missing or nonoperational hardware • deteriorated wood doors and door frames, missing or nonoperational door hardware • deteriorated finishes on interior and exterior woodwork, high flame spread rating on historic materials • underused and poorly organized pantry and storage areas, low efficiency of space use, deteriorated condition • inadequate insulation in existing pantry area • poor security from deteriorated and nonfunctional interior and exterior lock sets • deteriorated nonhistoric roof covering, materials at end of useful life span, leaking roof, deteriorated flashing

7 Problems at Sperry dormitory include:

• poor site drainage at base of structure leading to deterioration and water infiltration at base of stone walls • deteriorated and historically incorrect structure at west balcony /porch leading to possible loading failure of structure • deteriorated wood window sash and frames, deteriorated window glazing, and missing or nonoperational hardware • deteriorated wood doors and frames, missing or nonoperational door hardware • deteriorated and missing mortar in stone walls • poor security from deteriorated and nonfunctional interior and exterior lock sets • deteriorated interior woodwork • deteriorated finishes on interior woodwork, high flame spread rating on historic materials • deteriorated finishes on interior wood floors, high flame spread rating on historic materials • deteriorated structural system including interior framing system (floors and walls, stair, etc.) • deteriorated nonhistoric roof covering, materials at end of useful life span, leaking roof, deteriorated flashing • inadequate on-site storage and maintenance facilities, leading to improper storage of winterizing materials, restriction of visitor and employee access and egress NATURAL RESOURCES

The chalets are small development enclaves in an area proposed for designation as wilderness.

Operation of the existing chalets' water and sewage systems may be affecting adjacent natural resources (soil, wildlife, vegetation, and water quality). Visitor activity concentration and use of the chalets have resulted in a large number of social trails and soil erosion impacts in the vicinity of the chalets. Granite Park chalet is adjacent to frequently used bear-feeding areas, and careful consideration must be given to potential impacts on the abundance and distribution of both grizzly and black bears within the area. Human activity at the chalets can easily result in wildlife attractant and habituation problems. Intentional salting and the presence of visitor urine have resulted in high concentrations of mountain goats at the Sperry chalet, with habituation, overgrazing and pawing, and consumption of soil. Food storage and sanitation are critical issues in relation to wildlife impacts.

A 1988 surface water study of the vicinity and downstream of the chalets revealed that the septic systems at Granite Park and Sperry chalets are exceptionally subject to off-site transport of effluent. Human waste was observed on the surface of the ground around both septic systems resulting in both a terrestrial system and surface water contamination. Investigators reported in that study that the potential for contamination of surface water by nutrients associated with septic fields at the chalets is high. High altitude rocky substrate and limited accumulation of soils within the vicinity of both chalets will make finding adequate drainage for properly functioning leach fields difficult. Natural bear feeding activities near Granite Park create a high potential for digging to occur within any established leach field at that site.

Trail rides, with the chalets as a destination, have also contributed to soil impacts. There are additional impacts from stock excrement remaining within the area. Stock droppings increase nutrient input into the area and act as attractants to insect and other wildlife species.

8 VISITOR USE

In 1992, the chalets accommodated 4,438 guests, and averaged 4,604 guests per year between 1980 and 1992. Glacier's total 1992 visitation was 2.2 million.

The chalets are a popular day-use destination for many hikers and overnight backpackers passing through on their way to nearby campsites who take limited advantage of the chalets' services. However, these hikers do place a substantial demand on the chalet water and sewer systems.

Daily horse rides are provided to Sperry chalet from the Lake McDonald corral and to Granite Park chalet from the Many Glacier corral. Both are popular with the visitors who use them, although the Granite Park ride has fewer riders.

The chalets provide the elderly, people with small children, and people with mobility impairments a way to experience overnight stays in the park's backcountry without the need to carry heavy packs. In addition, the chalets provide a historic experience or tradition for some visitors.

Actions taken on the chalets may affect use patterns on the Loop trail system, as well as other backcountry trails.

During seeping, many respondents noted that the chalets provide safety and sanctuary from bears and inclement weather in the backcountry.

ISSUES NOT ANALVZED

There were some areas of confusion evidenced by responses received during the seeping period. The following information may resolve this confusion. In addition, the issues not analyzed and the reasons for not addressing them are detailed below.

Chalet Closure

Many respondents do not understand or agree with the decision to close the chalets in 1993.

As was stated in the closure briefing paper received by those who wrote in about the closure (see appendix 1), due to recent changes in the laws, the sewage treatment facilities at the chalets do not comply with the letter and intent of sewage treatment laws. Park and regional staff and the U.S. Public Health Service met in December 1992 to carefully examine the condition of the existing systems and consider alternatives to bring them into compliance with existing laws. This examination disclosed that the leach fields used to filter effluent from the septic tanks do not function properly and fail to meet the requirements of the federal and state laws governing discharge of sewage effluent.

After possible solutions were reviewed, it became clear that no avenue existed to bring the leach fields into compliance before a July 1993 opening, even if funding were immediately available. Replacement of the leach fields or use of some other technology is necessary and will require time and funding to plan and construct. Therefore, the NPS honored its statutory obligations regarding sewage treatment and temporarily closed the chalets until the facilities can be brought into compliance. The chalets will remain closed until a decision is made on the long-term future of the chalets and funding is obtained to implement the alternative selected.

9 Life-Safety Issues

Some respondents believe that sewage treatment/disposal is the only problem and the planning process should not be confused by adding water system, life-safety, and historic resource issues.

The life/safety issues needed to be addressed due to the failure of the chalets to pass fire inspections. These inspections identified the need for a fire-suppression system, additional means of egress, and the requirement for additional lighting and a more fire-resistant interior surface.

These buildings, like other buildings within the park, are in need of major repairs such as, but not limited to, new roofs; window repairs; repairs to doors, floors, and rock pointing; new hand railings; and new steps.

The compliance order the park received from the state addressed only the operation of the sewer system. Additional regulations that went into effect June 1993 require daily turbidity readings for all surface water systems along with additional chlorine residual readings. The NPS cannot meet this new regulation until the problem of inadequate water supply has been addressed. Almost every summer the chalets run out of water by the end of the season.

Fees

Some respondents believe that increasing the fees the NPS charges the concessioner for use of the chalets, or increasing park gate receipts and infusing that money into the chalet operations, would be the answer to the problems.

Some respondents believe that more money should be charged for stays at the chalets and that the additional revenues would support the construction and operation of an improved sewage system.

Current legislation prohibits the NPS from increasing park entrance fees to fund construction or rehabilitation projects and from retaining the fees in the park to fund other park operations. Expenditure of funds paid the NPS by the concessioner is also restricted. Currently, franchise fees, or the fees paid by the concessioner to the NPS for the privilege of operating a concession in the park, are forwarded to the general treasury and cannot be retained in the park to fund operations.

Under current policy, there is a way to charge the concessioner the actual cost for provision of utilities such as water and sewer services. The concessioner could then pass a portion of this cost on to the guests through increased rates. However, there is still a need to raise the initial funds for construction and rehabilitation of the chalets and the utility systems. In order to induce a concessioner to make such a sizable initial investment, the contract would need to cover a term sufficient to allow the concessioner to recoup that investment. Rates would likewise need to be increased to cover the additional investment and provide the concessioner an adequate return on that investment. Raising rates to cover construction and utility operating costs in the initial years of the contract could effectively price the chalets out of reach for the average park visitor (perhaps as much as $200 per night) and make it difficult for families to take advantage of the service. It should be noted that even with the traditional service with flush toilets alternative, facilities are rustic and basic and the services provided are minimal. Given these

10 circumstances, visitor expectations of what a substantial expenditure would provide would need to be adjusted.

Many people believe that the park should take the funds used to run other park operations and use them for the chalets.

The park is already using funds from other sources to operate the chalets, which has resulted in a decrease in the staff used to clean and perform maintenance in the campgrounds and deferred rehabilitation on other park facilities. An increase in this practice would, at the current level of funding, result in closure of other park facilities in order to operate the chalets.

Level of Services

Many respondents believe that the level of seNices should not be considered as a part of the planning and that the alternatives should be restructured to focus on sewage treatment alternatives.

The alternatives were revised to focus on sewage treatment solutions, with the level of service provided being dependent on the utilities available.

Effluent

Many people did not understand the large volume of effluent that would need to be treated by an improved sewage system.

The historic average daily flow of water requiring treatment is between 1,600 to 2,900, depending on which chalet is being considered. Now, all wastewater produced at the chalets goes through the sewer system and requires treatment, regardless of whether it is sewage or dishwater.

Applicability of Public Health Standards

There is a belief that public health standards should not apply to this kind of facility and that an exception of some sort should be granted for the operation of the sewage systems at the chalets.

The federal government, through the U.S. Public Health Service and through the State Department of Health and Environmental Sciences, regulates all public water supplies in accordance with all applicable regulations. Exceptions to these regulations are not generally granted. The health of the public is the primary concern.

Impact Trade-off

Many respondents stated that the positive aspects of the chalet operation, such as fostering an overnight backcountry type of experience for people who cannot pack their gear in, outweigh the negative ones, such as increasing impacts to wildlife and vegetation.

The positive and negative effects of the various alternatives will be considered in the environmental assessment, and this will be used in determining a proposed course of action.

11 Table 1: Issues Evaluation

Issue Evaluated? Location in EA YesfNo Access Complications because of short Yes Purpose and Need, Issues construction I operation season Appropriate use of helicopters for Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; waste removal and early season Environmental Consequences, supply Natural Resources and Visitor Use Oifficult access, often requiring Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; snow removal Environmental Consequences Requirements to make facilities Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; accessible for visitors with Environmental Consequences, Visitor disabilities Use Chalet Closure The chalets did not need to close No Purpose and Need, Issues Not to solve the problems and should Analyzed be immediately reopened Concessions Is concession necessary or Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; appropriate? Environmental Consequences, Socioeconomic Resources Is concessioner provided a Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; reasonable opportunity to make a Environmental Consequences, profit? Socioeconomic Resources What level of service should be Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; provided by a concessioner? Environmental Consequences, Socioeconomic Resources Level of service should not be Yes Alternatives Considered considered in this planning effort Impacts on chalet concessioner Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; Environmental Consequences, Socioeconomic Resources Impacts on horsejstock Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; concessioner Environmental Consequences, Socioeconomic Resources

12 Issue Evaluated? Location in EA YesjNo

Costs/Fees Cost/benefit comparison Yes Environmental Consequences, Visitor Use, Appendix 2 What are construction costs? Yes Appendix 2 What are operation and Yes Appendix 2 maintenance costs? NPS should increase fees to chalet No Purpose and Need, Issues Not concessioner (or gate receipts) to Analyzed provide money for chalet repairs Charge more for chalet stays to No Purpose and Need, Issues Not support construction/operation of Analyzed improved sewage system Take funds from other park No Purpose and Need, Issues Not operations to repair chalets Analyzed Cultural Resources Both chalets are national historic Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; landmarks Environmental Consequences, Cultural Resources What are effects to chalets? Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; Environmental Consequences, Cultural Resources Natural Resources Chalets are development enclaves Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; surrounded by wilderness Environmental Consequences, Natural Resources Chalet operation may affect soil, Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; wildlife, vegetation, and water Environmental Consequences, quality Natural Resources Social trails and erosion Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; Environmental Consequences, Natural Resources Impacts to grizzly bears Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; Environmental Consequences, Natural Resources Impacts on mountain goats Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; Environmental Consequences, Natural Resources

13 Issue Evaluated? Location In EA Yes/NO Potential surface water Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; contamination Environmental Consequences, Natural Resources Effects of horse use on soils, Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; vegetation, and wildlife Environmental Consequences, Natural Resources Safety Considerations Presence of lead paint and Yes Purpose and Need, Issues asbestos? Sperry needs an appropriate Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; means of egress from the second Environmental Consequences, Visitor floor Use Need to provide means to alert Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; and evacuate occupants (including Environmental Consequences, Visitor hearing and visually impaired) Use Both chalets have cracks, seams, Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; and penetrations through which Environmental Consequences, Visitor smoke and fire can readily pass Use Existing fire suppression systems Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; are inadequate for effective fire Environmental Consequences, Visitor fighting Use Should not complicate problems No Purpose and Need, Issues Not by considering other safety issues Analyzed in deciding how to deal with sewage problem Sewage Treatment

Need to meet current state and Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; federal standards for sewage Alternatives Considered; treatment Environmental Consequences, Natural Resources Why is so much effluent No Purpose and Need, Issues Not generated? Analyzed Effectiveness of composting toilets Yes Alternatives Considered Public health service standards No Purpose and Need, Issues Not should not apply to the chalets and Analyzed an exception should be granted

14 Issue Evaluated? Location in EA YesfNo Stabilization/Structural Repairs Need structural repairs and Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; stabilization work at both chalets Environmental Consequences, Cultural Resources Visitor Use Use of chalets' systems by day Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; use hikers Environmental Consequences, Visitor Use Daily horse rides to chalets are Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; popular with visitors Environmental Consequences, Socioeconomic Resources and Visitor Use Chalets provide elderly, small Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; children, and people with mobility Environmental Consequences, Visitor impairments a way to experience Use overnight stays in the backcountry Chalets provide a historic or Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; traditional experience for some Environmental Consequences, visitors Cultural Resources Actions taken at chalets may affect Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; use patterns on other backcountry Environmental Consequences, Visitor trails Use Positive effects to visitors outweigh No Purpose and Need, Issues Not the adverse effects to natural Analyzed resources Chalets provide safety and Yes Purpose and Need, Issues; sanctuary from bears and Environmental Consequences, Visitor inclement weather Use Water Systems Limited and unpredictable water Yes Alternatives Considered supply.

15

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Alternatives considered in this EA are based on the various possible solutions to the water and sewer problems; level of use is dictated by the services available. This differs from the approach used in the scoping brochure, and the change is as a result of suggestions received during scoping. Table 2 shows the alternatives developed and reasons for evaluating or eliminating them from consideration. Alternatives are broadly categorized: no wastewater generation (caretaker status), water only provided (overnight shelter with only drinking and dish-washing water available), and traditional service with com posting or flush toilets. Because there could be some disagreement about which alternative constitutes no action, both an alternative representing the former level of service (alternative 4: traditional service with flush toilets) and a closure alternative (alternative 1: caretaker status) are evaluated.

GRANITE PARK CHALET

ALTERNATIVE 1- CARETAKER STATUS

Under this alternative, no services would be provided at the chalet and the chalet would be closed to public use. An NPS employee would live on site to maintain the chalets and the sewage system needed for day hikers. The former rest room building would be remodeled to serve as NPS employee quarters, however, the maintenance and storage rooms would remain. Water and food would be packed in for employee use; there would be no showers, flush toilets, or kitchen. Sewage disposal needs of day hikers and the employee(s) would be handled by composting toilets. Battery-operated smoke detectors would be provided in the chalet. Access to the second floor of the chalet would be blocked.

Sewage Treatment

Because the chalet would be closed, toilet facilities would be provided only for day hikers and backpackers. These would consist of the existing two-unit composting toilet and additional com posting toilets. The number of units required is determined by the number of uses per day that the composting unit can accommodate. In more favorable environments, such as Indian Gardens at Grand Canyon National Park, an average loading of about 100 usesjdayjunit has been demonstrated to be acceptable. An appropriate loading for the chalet location is estimated to be about 50 usesjday /unit. Because of the altitude and generally cool ambient temperatures, a supplemental source of heat, such as propane, would be provided to achieve adequate com posting.

Based on the number of day hikers and campers that use the area, an additional two composting toilet units would be required. Compost and excess urine would be hauled out by horse or helicopter annually.

17 \ ' 6800 ' ',_High line -----,,..,>. ' \~· ,~ I ... ----\ ...... _ 'I ... ---- , '-...., I ---- ' I ' ,, I \ \ \ \ ' \ campsite I I I I I I I I I I

I I e water tank 1 ., - .... c." ' flush /' toilets 1 ~~ • 1/ compos/ t'mg toilet I I I I I

I I I I I I I

EXISTING CONDITIONS NORTH Granite Park Chalet -fr Glacier National Park 0 100 200 reet United States Department of the Interior "--·----- National Park Service 117 80,043 Oct. 1993 RMRO sheet 1 of 5 \ ' 6800 ' ''_High line I -----.A,,... I \~- I water intake \/ & pump \ I ------... ----...... _ I / ', I ---- ', I / I ' v I I \ / \ \ \ \ \ campsite I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,.. - ..... move exis ·ng water l./ ' & sewer s \ flush / toilets 1 ~~ . ,' compbsting toilet- add 2 y'nits I I I

ALTERNATIVE 1 NORTH Granite Park Chalet Glacier National Park 0 100* 200 feet United States Department of the Interior '---·------National Park Service 117 80,043 Oct. 1993 RMRO sheel 2 of 5 Water System

Water would not be provided for visitors or for fire protection of the buildings, so no improvements to the water system would be necessary. Because water required by the NPS employee would be hauled in, the existing water tank, distribution lines, and pumps would be removed.

ALTERNATIVE 2- SHELTER

Under this alternative, the chalet would be open to the public for overnight use as a shelter only. No food service, showers, or flush toilets would be provided to the public. Drinking water would be available, as would limited dish-washing facilities. Composting toilets would be used by chalet guests, day hikers, and employee(s). As in alternative 1, an NPS employee would be on site to maintain the chalet and water and sewage systems. The former rest room building would be remodeled to accommodate an NPS employee, however, the maintenance and storage rooms would remain. Because the chalet would be used, numerous life/health/safety improvements would be made to ensure public safety (smoke detectors, alarms, fire retardant, second stair for egress, emergency exit lighting, water system improvements, etc.). A reservation system would be implemented. The shelter could be operated by the NPS, a concessioner, or a private group.

Accessibility

Although their remote locations and rugged surroundings make access to the chalets difficult for persons with disabilities, several measures will be included in all chalet-use alternatives (2, 3, and 4) to increase accessibility. Both chalets are served by the horse concessioner, and visitors with mobility impairments could use horses for access. An accessible route will be provided at Granite Park between a ground-floor sleeping room, the main chalet dining room, and rest rooms. Also alterations to meet accessibility requirements would be made following the guidelines developed in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guideline that address historic preservation. Signs and alarm systems at both chalets will facilitate their use by persons with hearing and vision impairments.

Sewage Treatment

A conventional septic tank and subsurface disposal field for human wastes would not provide adequate treatment or meet state requirements due to the shallow soils in the vicinity of the chalet. The state requirement for at least four feet of suitable soil between the bottom of the drain field trench and bedrock or groundwater cannot be met.

The wastewater disposal system would accommodate food preparation and dish washing by individual guests. Disposal of human wastes would be accommodated by composting toilets. The existing two-unit toilet would be removed and replaced by a new eight-unit facility. The building size would be approximately 48- by 12-feet.

The toilet building would need to be well insulated. Solar heating with a backup propane thermogenerator would probably be needed to evaporate liquids and maintain adequate biological activity in the compost vaults. Each year, after sufficient volume builds up, compost would be removed from the bottoms of the vaults, and hauled out by horse or helicopter.

20 The wastewater disposal system would be designed to meet subsurface discharge requirements. The proposed system would consist of a septic tank, dosing siphon, intermittent sand filter, and subsurface disposal field (see Proposed Wastewater Treatment Flow Schematic Diagram-No Toilet Wastes).

The volume of wastewater to be treated is estimated to be 900 gallons per day (gpd). The existing 2,000-gallon septic tank would remain in service. Effluent from the septic tank would flow to a dosing siphon. The siphon would be sized to ensure uniform distribution of the effluent to the intermittent sand filter.

The intermittent sand filter would consist of a buried sand bed with distribution piping on top and collection piping underneath (see Cross Section of Proposed Intermittent Sand Filter). The sand filter would be sized for an application rate of 1 gal/ff/day, resulting in a 900-square-foot, or 25- by 36-foot area. The total depth of the filter would be about 4.5 feet.

Because the depth of soil in the vicinity is generally 1 foot or less, most of the excavation would entail blasting of bedrock. The volume of sand to be hauled in would be about 83 cubic yards, at a weight of 247,500 pounds, and the volume of gravel would be about 50 cubic yards, at a weight of 148,500 pounds. Crushed anthracite could be substituted for the sand, reducing the hauling weight to about 135,000 pounds. The Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) removal would be higher than for sand due to carbon absorption, at least for the first few years. After the carbon absorption capacity is used up, the filter efficiency would be at least as good as for sand. Plastic media could, likewise, be substituted for the gravel, at considerable weight savings.

The sand filter would provide a higher level of treatment than would be provided by the required 4 feet of soil under a conventional disposal field. The filter would be expected to produce effluent with a BOD and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in the range of 4 to 10 mg/1. The state has indicated that the effluent limits for BOD and TSS would be 30 mg/1 for subsurface disposal.

With regular use, the sand filter would develop a biological filter layer in the upper portion of the sand. The seasonal operation of the system would extend the filter life by preventing the biological buildup from getting too thick, but might decrease the filter efficiency, because the biological filter layer would have to be regenerated at the beginning of each operating season.

The subsurface disposal field would be similar to the intermittent sand filter, but without the collection piping and impermeable liner in the bottom. The drain field could be about 1,200 square feet, although a smaller size might also be effective.

At the end of each operating season, the septic tank would be drained to a bio-solids-drying box. This box would be similar to the septic tank, but would be equipped with a bed of sand and an underdrain system. Most of the liquids would drain out through the sand and into the intermittent sand filter. Dried bio-solids would be hauled out the following season. A positive ventilation system might be necessary to achieve the desired drying of the bio-solids.

Water System

The existing water system is inadequate due to a leaking wood stave water tank and a water ram that wastes more water than it delivers to the tank. The replacement system would include a new low head dam, new waterline, and a new 10,000-gallon storage tank. A new distribution system would be constructed between the new storage tank and the chalet.

21 WINTER DRAIN --..._1? l;i WASTE- DOSING WATER EXISTING* SUBSURFACE TANK INTERMITTENT SEPTIC SAND FILTER DRAIN TANK WITH SIPHONS FIELD

COVERED BIO-SOLIDS DRYING BED

*NEW SEPTIC TANK FOR SPERRY CHALET NOTE: GRAVITY FLOW SYSTEM - NO PUMPS REQUIRED, UNLESS RECIRCULATION IS INCLUDED.

GRANITE AND SPERRY CHALETS - PROPOSED WASTEWATERTREATMENT FLOW SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM NO TOILET WASTES POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCE WEIGHT AND HAULING COST TO REMOTE SITE: USE CRUSHED ANTHRACITE COAL RATHER THAN SAND. USE PLASTIC INSTEAD OF GRAVEL FOR UNDER­ DRAIN AND FOR FLOW DISTRIBUTION.

. ~ PVC RISER PIPES FOR ~~ AERATION OF FILTER

~ 6" OF COVER TO BLEND /LAYER OF HYPALON ' IN WITH ENVIRONMENT f IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE ~~~======~ 6" OF 1" TO (\...-4" PERF. PVC '~ 2 1 /2" GRAVEL \_) DISTRIBUTOR PIPE 0

/LAYER OF yw t_ GEOMAT r---3" OF 1/4" TO 1" GRAVEL r--3" OF 3/4" TO 1" GRAVEL 4" PERF. PVC · (\ ~6" OF 1" TO 0 /LAYER OF HYPALON COLLECTOR PIPE--""'\_} 2 1 /2" GRAVEL Jf IMPERMEABLE MEMBRANE

~BEDROCK

GRANITE AND SPERRY CHALETS CROSS SECTION OF PROPOSED INTERMITTENT SAND FILTER \ ' 6800 ' ' ...... _High line ----- ,>.. ' '\ ,... reconstruct existing \~;. 'I water intake & pump ', I ... ~~--~- ----~~~ I ---··· . --/ ...... I -- ', I / -- I - ' v I I \ I \ \ \ \

campsite

I I I ,..... - ...... t,/ ' construct new \ I co osting toilets_. flush I toilets 1 ~ ~ +repf~ve compos ling toilet I I I I I

I I I I I I I

ALTEA NATIVE 2 NORTH Granite Park Chalet ~ mJ Glacier National Park United States Department of the Interior feet National Park Service

1171 80,043 Oct. 1993 RMRO sheet 3 of 5 Power

A continuous source of power would be needed for the turbidity- and chlorine-monitoring equipment that is required by current drinking water regulations. The most likely source of power would be solar with propane, thermoelectric generators as backup. Because these generators would release a significant amount of heat, they could be located in the vault areas of the proposed composting toilets to provide a supplemental heat source.

ALTERNATIVE 3- TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH COMPOSTING TOILETS

This alternative is the NPS preferred alternative. Under alternative 3, the chalet would be open to the public for overnight use. Linen service, food services, and employee showers would be available. The possibility of doing laundry off site was considered, but because the effects of continuing to do laundry on site (visual effects and minor noise from generator) were not significant, the option to continue to do laundry on site was selected. Disposal of sewage would be accommodated by eight composting toilets, and the wastewater from food preparation, employee showers, laundry, and dish washing would be handled as described under alternative 2. An NPS employee would be on site to maintain chalet water and sewage systems. The employee would be housed in one of the guest rooms. The former rest room building would be remodeled to serve as NPS employee quarters. Because the chalet would be used, numerous lifejhealthjsafety improvements would be made to ensure public safety (smoke detectors, alarms, fire retardant, second stair for egress, emergency exit lighting, drinking water improvements, etc.).

Sewage Treatment

This system would be identical to that previously described for alternative 2. The wastewater disposal system would accommodate food preparation, dish washing, laundry, and employee showers, and would be sized for a daily flow of 900 gpd. Disposal of human wastes would be accommodated by composting toilets. The number of units required would be as described for alternative 2. Urine from the composting toilets in excess of what could be evaporated would collected and hauled out.

Water System

Water system requirements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Power

Power requirements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

25 \ ' 6800 ' ' ...... _High line ----...... ,A \ reconstruct existi .· ',A \ water intake & pum water intake '{-;. I ... & pump , \ .------~~--~- ----~~~ I , ...... , I ' I / -- I - ' v I I \ / \ \ \ \

campsite I I I I I I convert 1 truct new w ter structure~' storage ta & to emplo supply lin

construct new ' \ osting toilets- I flush I toilets 1 ~ ~ +repf~ve composting toilet I I I I I

I I I I I I I

ALTERNATIVE 3 NORTH._. Granite Park Chalet Glacier National Park 0 100 200 feet United States Department of the Interior ""--·------National Park Service 117 I 80.043 Oct. 1993 RMRO sheet 4 or 5 ALTERNATIVE 4 - TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH FLUSH TOILETS

Under this alternative, the chalets would be open to the public for overnight use as in alternative 3, with the addition of flush toilets. As in alternatives 1 and 3, an NPS employee would be on site to maintain the chalet's water and sewage systems. The NPS employee would be housed in one of the guest rooms. All facilities would be within the existing development footprint. Sewage effluent would flow from a septic tank to a sand filter with subsurface water discharge. Bio-solids would be dried and packed out annually. Because the chalet would be used, numerous lifejhealthjsafety improvements would be made to ensure public safety (smoke detectors, alarms, fire retardant, second stair for egress, emergency exit lighting, drinking water improvements, etc.).

Sewage Treatment

Under alternative 4, the wastewater disposal system would accommodate food preparation, dish washing, laundry, employee showers, and flush toilets.

Because soil conditions preclude a conventional subsurface disposal system, the system would utilize an intermittent sand filter to provide adequate treatment of the septic tank effluent prior to subsurface discharge.

The proposed system would consist of a septic tank, dosing siphon, and intermittent sand filter. Chlorination and dechlorination of the effluent might be required (see Proposed Wastewater Treatment Flow Schematic Diagram-Flush Toilets).

The daily wastewater quantity in the past was estimated at 2,400 gpd. This would be reduced to 1,500 gpd by replacing the existing 5-gallon flush toilets with 1.5-gallon flush toilets and installing low-flow showerheads. The existing 2,000-gallon septic tank would remain in service.

Septic tank effluent would flow to a dosing siphon. The siphon would be sized to ensure uniform distribution of the septic tank effluent to the intermittent sand filter.

The intermittent sand filter would use a buried sand bed to treat septic tank effluent to tertiary standards. The sand filter would be as described for Alternative 2, except the size would be 1,500 square-feet, or 30- by 50-feet.

Because the depth of soil in the vicinity is generally 1 foot or less, most of the excavation would entail blasting of bedrock. The total volume of sand to be hauled in would be about 139 cubic yards, at a weight of 412,500 pounds. The total volume of gravel to be hauled in would be approximately 83 cubic yards, at a weight of 247,500 pounds. Crushed anthracite could be substituted for the sand, reducing the hauling weight to about 225,000 pounds. The BOD removal would be higher than for sand due to carbon absorption, at least for the first few years. After the carbon absorption capacity is used up, the filter efficiency would be at least as good as for sand. Plastic media could, likewise, be substituted for the gravel, at considerable weight savings.

The filter would be expected to produce an effluent with a BOD and TSS in the range of 10 to 15 mg/1, which would be less than the state limits of 30 mg/1 for subsurface discharge. If an effluent limit is imposed for nitrogen, this alternative would probably not be feasible, because the

27 current state of the art for nitrogen removal technology is complex and requires a carbon source such as methane.

Disinfection of filter effluent might be required for pathogen control. This would be accommodated by a pill-type chlorinator. Effluent would then flow to a contact tank, which would provide time for the chlorine to deactivate pathogens. A pill-type dechlorinator would neutralize the chlorine before the effluent is discharged.

The subsurface disposal field would be as described in alternative 2, although it would be larger (maximum 2,000 square feet).

At the end of each operating season, the septic tank would be drained to a bio-solids-drying box. This box would be similar to the septic tank, but would be equipped with a bed of sand and an underdrain system. Most of the liquids would drain out through the sand and into the intermittent sand filter. Dried bio-solids would be hauled out the following season. A positive ventilation system might be necessary to achieve the desired drying of the bio-solids.

An advantage of this alternative is that all of the solid human wastes would be collected in one place--the bio-solids-drying box. On the other hand, this alternative would require more water than the other alternatives. In addition, the effluent quality would be lower (higher BOD and TSS) than if the toilet wastes were kept out of the system.

The existing two-unit composting toilet would be retained for shoulder-season use.

This system would appear to meet current state standards, unless a nitrate limit is imposed. The regulations controlling sewage treatment and drinking water keep getting stricter, which is why the existing systems at the chalets were determined to be out of compliance with state and federal standards. There is a distinct possibility that these standards will become strict enough in the future that this alternative would not meet them. Nitrate, in particular, is likely to see more stringent effluent limits.

Water System

Water system requirements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Power

Power requirements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

One alternative suggested was to purchase a package plant. This plant would require a power source that could be provided by a generator or solar jphotovoltaic system.

Several types of package treatment plants have been suggested, but all have serious drawbacks for the chalet location. A biological treatment plant would be adversely affected by difficulty of access to the remote location. The generally cold air and water temperatures would reduce the biological activity. The short, 60-day season would require some seed bio-solids to activate the process, and the process probably would not become stable and effective before the chalet is

28 closed for the season. A continuous source of electrical power and a full-time operator would also be required.

A physicaljchemical package plant is a fairly high-technology, sophisticated operation. A continuous source of electrical power and a full-time operator would be required. Coagulant chemicals would have to be hauled to the site, and the volume of bio-solids to be hauled out would be increased. For these reasons, package plants were eliminated from detailed study.

29 \ ', -----6800 ' ...... _High line -----,,....>. II reconstruct existing water Intake & pump water intake '{';. I & pump ' \ ... ------··· ~~--~- ----~~~ I . ----/ '-....., I ' I / --- I ' v I I \ I \ \ \ \ campsite I I I I I I I I I ruct new wa storage tank I I supply lines I ,.. - .... t,/ ' \ flush / toilets 1 ~~ . // compbsting toilet I I / I I

I I I I I I I

ALTERNATIVE 4 NORTH._. Granite Park Chalet Glacier National Park 0 100 200 reet United States Department of the Interior "--·----- National Park Service 117 80,043 Oct. 1993 AMRO sheet 5 of 5 w -a. w -a. ~ ~ _J _J _J a: ~ a. 0 _J 0 0 _J (/) 0 ...... (/)

WINTER DRAIN --..._I I 0 :X: ~ _J (.) RAW I w (.) SEWAGE DOSING 0 EXISTING* CHLORINE TANK __., ~ SEPTIC INTERMITTENT ~ SUBSURFACE - WITH CONTACT TANK SAND FILTER DISCHARGE SIPHONS TANK

1 7 WINTE~~ DRAIN

COVERED BIO-SOLIDS DRYING BED

*NEW SEPTIC TANK FOR SPERRY CHALET NOTE: GRAVITY FLOW SYSTEM - NO PUMPS REQUIRED, UNLESS RECIRCULATION IS INCLUDED.

GRANITE AND SPERRY CHALETS - PROPOSED WASTEWATERTREATMENT FLOW SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM FLUSH TOILETS Table 2: Alternatives Evaluation

Alternative Description Source Evaluated Comments or Reasons for in EA? Elimination from Consideration Retain the existing level of Seeping Yes Alternatives 3 and 4 service (concessioner brochure provides meals, lodging, and full linen service) Reduce the service level Seeping Yes Some elements are included in (concessioner provides meals brochure alternative 2. for guests only, no linen service) Operate as limited service Seeping Yes Most elements are included in hostels (reservation and brochure alternative 2. caretaker service provided by outside entity, guests bring own food and sleeping bags, only cooking facilities provided, no flush toilets or running water) Operate as primitive shelters Seeping Yes Some elements are included in only (no beds, indoor kitchen brochure alternative 2 facilities, or water provided) Close chalets permanently Seeping No This would result in (provide wayside exhibits, brochure uncontrolled visitor use of the hitch rails, and pit toilets only) chalets with makeshift fires, structural modifications, and problems with human waste and garbage disposal. These effects would cause serious deterioration of the chalet structures and degrade the visitor experience. Remove all trace of the Public No Because the chalets are chalets response national historic landmarks, during their removal would be a seeping significant adverse effect to be avoided, if possible. Our analysis shows that adverse effects of chalet operation could be mitigated, making removal unnecessary.

32 Alternative Description Source Evaluated Comments or Reasons for in EA? Elimination from Consideration Add on to the existing chalets Public No The immediate vicinity of each response chalet is protected as a historic during district. Adding more buildings seeping at these sites would compromise the integrity of the district. Also, additional overnight use would aggravate the problems with water supply and sewage disposal. Add more chalets at other Public No Adding more chalets at other locations response backcountry locations would during compromise the park's seeping wilderness values and result in adverse effects on the park's natural resources. Addition of units is beyond the scope of this project.

33 Table 3: Comparison of Alternatives, Granite Park

- --- ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1 : Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Operations

Day use No Yes Yes Yes Overnight visitor use No Yes (fee charged) Yes (fee charged) Yes (fee charged) 11

Food service No No Yes, for guests with a Ia Yes, for guests with a Ia I carte from 12-5 carte from 12-5 Employees (NPS) Yes Yes Yes Yes

I I Employees (cone.) No Yes Yes Yes Employee showers No No Yes Yes Public showers No No No No Public access to Closed to public, access Open Open Open structures to second floor blocked Accessibility No Provide accessible Provide accessible Provide accessible improvements ground-floor sleeping ground-floor sleeping ground-floor sleeping rooms and accessible rooms and accessible rooms and accessible route between room, route between room, route between room, dining room, and rest dining room, and rest dining room, and rest rooms. Signs and alarm rooms. Signs and alarm rooms. Signs and alarm systems will benefit systems will benefit systems will benefit persons with hearing and persons with hearing and persons with hearing and vision impairments. vision impairments. vision impairments.

Composting toilet Yes (4 units) Yes (7-8 units) Yes (7-8 units) Yes (2 units), for use during shoulder season

Flush toilets No No No Yes, open during main season on_ly__ _ ------

34 --~ ------~~ --·· ------~ -~ -- - ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1 : Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Laundry No No Yes Yes Kitchen/dish washing Caretaker only Yes Yes Yes Sewage treatment Effluent Retain existing 2-unit Need 7-8 composting Need 7-8 com posting Existing 2,000-gal. septic composting toilet toilet units (replace toilet units (replace tank to new 1,500-sq.-ft. existing building with 48'x existing building with 48'x sand filter to subsurface Construct 2 additional 12' building in the swale 12' building in the swale discharge in 2,000 composting toilet units north of the dining room) north of the dining room) square-foot drain field (may need chlorination/ Food preparation and Food preparation, dechlorination with two dish washing waste would shower, dish-washing 500-gal. underground go to existing septic tank waste would go to tanks, 3'x 6') to new 900-sq.ft. sand existing 2,000-gal. septic filter to subsurface tank to new 900-sq.-ft. Replace existing toilets discharge in 1,200 sand filter to subsurface with new low-flush toilets square-foot drain field discharge Retain existing composting toilet for - shoulder season use

I ----- ~- ~~------··------

35 ------ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1 : Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Bio-solids Pack out waste from Need covered bio-solids- Need covered bio-solids- Need covered bio-solids- composting toilets drying bed (bottomless drying bed (bottomless drying bed (bottomless annually 2,500-gal. tank with 2,500-gal. tank with 2,500-gal. tank with gravel, sand, and gravel, sand, and gravel, sand, and underdrain) (15'x 20'x 3' underdrain) (15'x20'x3' underdrain) (15'x 20'x 3' deep), packed out deep), packed out deep), packed out once/year oncejyear once/year

Pack out waste from Move existing bio-solids Move existing bio-solids composting toilets into new drying bed into new drying bed annually Pack out waste from Pack out waste from composting toilets composting toilets annually annually Monitoring Caretaker monitors NPS maintains/monitors NPS maintains/monitors NPS maintains/monitors composting toilet water system and water quality and water quality composting toilet composting toilet Water system

Water available on No (packed in for N PS Yes Yes Yes site? employee) Distribution lines Remove existing Need new line (reroute Need new line (reroute Need new line (reroute and cover) and cover) and cover)

Tank Remove existing Replace (10,000-gal.) Replace (10,000-gal.) Replace (10,000-gal.) Pumps Remove existing Replace Replace Replace Water intake Remove existing Reline I rebuild Reline/rebuild Reline/rebuild

36 ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1: Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Power

Sewage Retain solar for compost- Need power for Need power for Need power for ing toilet with propane composting toilets fans/ composting toilets composting toilets backup as supplemental heat source (use solar fans/heat source (use fansjheat source (use heat source for operation with propane backup) solar with propane solar w /propane backup) during cold, foggy backup) weather

Safety Need battery for smoke Need battery for exit Need battery for exit Need battery for exit detectors lighting/smoke detectors lighting/smoke detectors lighting/smoke detectors Water None Need power (solar with Need power (solar with Need power (solar with propane backup) for propane backup) for propane backup) for turbidity /chlorination turbidity /chlorination turbidity /chlorination monitoring monitoring monitoring Safety

Building egress Closed to public Need second stairway Need second stairway Need second stairway and emergency exit and emergency exit and emergency exit lighting lighting lighting OR: No second floor use OR: No second floor use OR: No second floor use Fire/smoke detection Need detectors with alarm Need detectors with Need detectors with Need detectors with alarm, install pull boxes at alarm, install pull boxes at alarm, install pull boxes at exits exits exits Sprinkler system No No No No Railings Block access to upper Narrow distance between Narrow distance between Narrow distance between level vertical rails vertical rails vertical rails Structural No use Need fire retardant and Need fire retardant and Need fire retardant and smoke resistance up- smoke resistance smoke resistance grades on corridors upgrades on corridors upgrades on corridors

37 ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1: Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Furnishings No use Need flame resistant Need flame resistant Need flame resistant mattresses and mattresses and mattresses and furnishings furnishings furnishings Structural repairs Repairs required to bring Repairs to bring the Repairs to bring the Repairs to bring the the buildings to a buildings to a buildings to a buildings to a maintainable status. No maintainable status. maintainable status. maintainable status. restoration work. Structures will be restored Structures will be restored Structures will be restored in accordance with in accordance with in accordance with I Adapt former rest room health/life safety health/life safety health/life safety

for use as employee improvements (i.e., improvements (i.e., improvements (i.e., i guardrails). Window and guardrails). Window and quarters guardrails). Window and I door repairs, repainting, door repairs, repainting, door repairs, repainting, I reroofing, and wood finish reroofing, and wood finish reroofing, and wood finish repairs needed. repairs needed. repairs needed.

Adapt former rest room Adapt former rest room Adapt guest room for use for use as employee for use as employee as employee quarters quarters quarters

38 SPERRY CHALET

The alternatives for the Sperry chalet resemble those discussed for Granite Park. Sperry chalet receives less day visitation than Granite Park, so the required sewage treatment facilities are smaller.

ALTERNATIVE 1- CARETAKER STATUS

Under this alternative, no services would be provided at the chalet and the chalet would be closed to public use. An NPS employee would be on site to maintain the chalets and the sewage system needed for day hikers. The former rest room building would be remodeled to accommodate an NPS employee. Water and food would be packed in for employee use; there would be no showers, flush toilets, or kitchen. Sewage disposal needs of day hikers and the employee would be dealt with by providing composting toilets. Battery-operated smoke detectors would be provided in the chalet.

Sewage Treatment

Because the chalet is currently closed, toilet requirements of day visitors and campers are accommodated by a two-hole pit toilet, with the two risers located within one interior space.

The pit toilet would be replaced with a two-unit composting toilet facility. It would be more difficult to achieve satisfactory operation out of a com posting toilet at Sperry than at Granite Park, because the area receives less sunshine due to shading and cloudiness. Supplemental heating would most likely be required. Bio-solids would be composted and hauled out annually.

Water System

Water would not be supplied for visitors or for fire protection of the buildings, so no improvements to the water system would be necessary. Because water would be hauled for the NPS employee, the existing water tank, distribution lines, and pumps would be removed.

ALTERNATIVE 2- SHELTER

Under this alternative, the chalet would be open to the public for overnight use as a shelter only. No food service, showers, or. flush toilets would be provided to the public. Sinks would be removed from the rooms to control water use and to eliminate sanitation problems resulting from visitors' tendency to urinate in them. Drinking water would be available, as would limited dish­ washing facilities. Composting toilets would be used by day hikers and employee(s). As in alternative 1, an NPS employee would be on site to maintain the chalets and sewage systems. The former rest room building would be remodeled to serve as NPS employee quarters. Because the chalet would be used, numerous life/health/safety improvements would be made to ensure public safety (smoke detectors, alarms, fire retardant, emergency exit lighting, drinking water improvements, etc.).

Fire Protection

There are two options for fire protection at Sperry: either (1) provide a fire-suppression system (sprinklers) or (2) enclose the stairs and modify the interiors to provide a 1-hour separation of all spaces within the structure.

39 In addition, fire protection requirements dictate that two means of egress be provided from the second-floor area. There are two possibilities for providing this egress: (1) either construct two exterior stairs at both ends of the building or (2) construct an interior corridor connecting both stairs. Another option would be to discontinue use of the second floor.

Accessibility

Although their remote locations and rugged surroundings make access to the chalets difficult for persons with disabilities, several measures will be included in all action alternatives (2, 3, and 4) to increase accessibility. Both chalets are served by the horse concessioner, and visitors with mobility impairments could use horses for access. Sperry chalet, due to the elevation separation of the rest rooms, dining room, and sleeping rooms, will not offer access to persons with mobility impairments. Signs and alarm systems at both chalets will facilitate their use by persons with hearing and vision impairments.

Sewage Treatment

Based on the historical numbers of day Visitors, campers, and overnight guests, human waste disposal could be accommodated by five composting toilet units. These units would be operated as described in the Granite Park alternatives.

The wastewater treatment and disposal system would be as described for Granite Park alternatives 2 and 3. The volume of wastewater to be treated is estimated to be 900 gpd. Because the existing septic tank is perched on the edge of a cliff, the sewer collection system from the buildings would be replumbed to deliver wastewater to a new, 1,200-gallon septic tank, located northeast of the buildings, to allow gravity flow through the entire system.

The sand filter would be sized fOi an application rate of 1 galjft2/day, resulting in a 900-square­ foot, or 25- by 36-foot area. Since the depth of soil in the vicinity is generally 1 foot or less, most of the excavation would entail blasting of bedrock. The volume of sand to be hauled in would about 83 cubic yards, at a weight of 247,500 pounds, and the volume of gravel would be about 50 cubic yards, at a weight of 148,500 pounds.

Crushed anthracite could be substituted for the sand. This would reduce the hauling weight to about 135,000 pounds. The BOD removal would be higher than for sand due to carbon absorption, at least for the first few years. After the carbon absorption capacity is used up, the filter efficiency would be at least as good as for sand. Plastic media could, likewise, be substituted for the gravel, at considerable weight savings.

The subsurface drain field would be designed as described for Granite Park alternative 2, and would be a maximum of 1,200 square feet.

There are no existing composting toilets at Sperry chalet, so five composting toilet units would be installed in a new approximately 30- by 12-foot building. Bio-solids would be composted and packed out annually.

40 0 0 Q) (0

water Intake & storage tank

EXISTING CONDITIONS Sperry Chalet NORTH Glacier National Park ~ 121 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 0 100 200 feet r..._. I I

117180,042 Oct. 1993 RMRO sheet 1 of 5 --/.... , I ...... / 1 ----- I

0 0 co (0

water intake & I storage tank chalet

AL TEA NATIVE 1 Sperry Chalet NORTH Glacier National Park ~ United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 0 100 200 feet ~-- I I

117180,042 Oct. 1993 RMRO sheet 2 of 5 --/..... I ...... _ / I I

,.. patrol cabin ( \ • a a co 7rl:t I\ _rem~ve (Q septic tank ' Pit to1let \ ' convert flush+~ to caretaker's """'r.. ron toilets • ~onstruct new c~mposting toilets \ \ I ' '- _ _G_un.s; chalet - ,.9..,1

ALTERNATIVE 2 Sperry Chalet NORTH Glacier National Park ~ United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 0..... _._..,__100 __ .....200 feet

117 LJl.Q,_04 2 Oct. 1993 IRMRCY sheet 3 of 5 Water System

The existing water system is marginally adequate to provide for the historical water needs of the chalet. The system would be upgraded to provide an adequate supply of water for the proposed sprinkler system. The water inlet area would be repaired to eliminate leakage. A new 10,000- gallon water storage tank would be installed. A larger diameter waterline would be constructed from the storage tank to the dormitory building. The distribution system would be extended to supply water to the trail crew cabin.

Power

A continuous source of power would be required for the proposed fire alarm system, and to operate the continuous turbidity- and chlorine-monitoring equipment that is required by current drinking water regulations. The most likely source of power would be solar power with propane, thermoelectric generators as backup. Since these generators would release a significant amount of heat, they could be located in the vault areas of the proposed composting toilets, to provide a supplemental heat source.

ALTERNATIVE 3 - TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH COMPOSTING TOILETS

Alternative 3 is the NPS preferred alternative. Under this alternative, the chalets would be open to the public for overnight use. Composting toilets, food services, laundry of bed linen, and employee showers would be available. The possibility of doing laundry off site was considered, but because the effects of continuing to do laundry on site (visual and minor noise from generator) were not significant, the option to continue to do laundry on site was selected. Sinks would be removed from the rooms to control water use and to eliminate sanitation problems resulting from visitors' tendency to urinate in them. Sewage disposal would be accommodated by composting toilets with a heat assist and wastewater from food preparation, employee showers, and dish washing would be as described for alternative 2. Bio-solids would be dried and packed out once a year. The former rest room building would be remodeled to serve as NPS employee quarters. Because the chalet would be used, numerous lifejhealthjsafety improvements would be made to ensure public safety (smoke detectors, alarms, fire retardant, emergency exit lighting, drinking water improvements, etc.). Fire protection needs would be met as described for alternative 2.

Sewage Treatment

Sewage treatment system operation would be the same as described for alternative 2.

The volume of wastewater to be treated is estimated to be 900 gpd. Because the existing septic tank is perched on the edge of a cliff, the sewer collection system from the buildings would be replumbed to deliver wastewater to a new, 1,200-gallon septic tank, located northeast of the buildings, to allow gravity flow through the entire system.

There are no existing composting toilets at Sperry chalet, so five composting toilet units would be installed in a new approximately 30- by 12-foot building.

Water System

Water system requirements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

44 Power

Power requirements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 4- TRADITIONAL SERVICE WITH FLUSH TOILETS

Under this alternative, the chalet would be open to the public for overnight use as in alternative 3, but with flush toilets. Sinks would be removed from the rooms to control water use and to eliminate sanitation problems resulting from visitors' tendency to urinate in them. Sewage effluent would flow from a septic tank to a sand filter with subsurface discharge. Bio-solids would be dried and packed out once every year. An NPS employee would be on site to maintain the chalets and water and sewer systems. The employee would be housed in one of the guest rooms. Because the chalet would be used, numerous life/health/safety improvements would be made to ensure public safety (smoke detectors, alarms, fire retardant, emergency exit lighting, drinking water improvements, etc.). Fire protection needs would be met as described for alternative 2.

Sewage Treatment

Sewage treatment system operation would be the same as described for the Granite Park alternative 4, although with slightly smaller sizes.

Historic wastewater generation was estimated at about 1,700 gpd. This would be reduced to about 1,200 gpd with the installation of low-flow water fixtures. Because the existing septic tank is perched on the edge of a cliff, the sewer collection system from the buildings would be replumbed to deliver wastewater to a new, 1,500-gallon septic tank, located northeast of the buildings, to allow gravity flow through the entire system.

The sand filter would be sized for an application rate of 1 gal/ft2 /day, resulting in a 1,200 square­ foot, or 25- by 44-foot, area. Since the depth of soil in the vicinity is generally 1 foot or less, most of the excavation would entail blasting of bedrock. The total volume of sand to be hauled in would be about 111 cubic yards, at a weight of 330,500 pounds. The total volume of gravel to be hauled in would be approximately 67 cubic yards, at a weight of 198,000 pounds.

Crushed anthracite could be substituted for the sand. This would reduce the hauling weight to about 180,000 pounds. The BOD removal would be higher than for sand due to carbon absorption, at least for the first few years. After the carbon absorption capacity is used up, the filter efficiency would be at least as good as for sand. Plastic media could, likewise, be substituted for the gravel, at considerable weight savings. The drain field would be as described for Granite Park alternative 2, with a maximum size of 1,500 square feet.

Two composting toilet units would be provided for use during the shoulder season.

Water System

Water system requirements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Power

Power requirements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

45 --/...... , / ...... _ / - I I

patrol cabin

• 0 co0 co

water intake & storage tank chalet

ALTERNATIVE 3 Sperry Chalet NORTH Glacier National Park ~ United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 0..... ___ 100 ...__ __ _200 feet

111 U!(J.042 -Oc-t.1--'-99:;_3 JRMR(f sheet 4 of 5 --/...... I ...... _ / I I

0 co0 remove co ' pit toilet \ \ \ flush+ \ toilets • 'construct new oomposting toilets \ I \, __~uns; chalet - ,9'.;; 1

ALTERNATIVE 4 Sperry Chalet NORTH Glacier National Park ~ United States Department of the Interior National Park Service 0...... _._._100 __ _200 feet

-:::------c-:-:11~7 1 80 · 04 ? sheet 5 of 5 Oct. 1993 RMRO ALTERNATIVE ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY

One alternative suggested was to purchase a package plant. This plant would require a power source that could be provided by a generator, penstock, or solar jphotovoltaic system. This alternative was eliminated for reasons described under the Granite Park chalet alternatives.

48 Table 4: Comparison of Alternatives, Sperry -- ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1: Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Operations

Day use No Yes Yes Yes Overnight visitor use No Yes (fee charged) Yes (fee charged) Yes (fee charged)

Food service No Yes Yes, for guests with a Ia Yes, for guests with a Ia carte from 12-5 carte from 12-5 Employees (NPS) Yes Yes Yes Yes i Employees (cone.) No Yes Yes Yes Employee showers No No Yes Yes I I Public showers No No No No Public access to Closed to public Open Open Open structures Accessibility No Signs and alarm systems Signs and alarm systems Signs and alarm systems improvements will benefit persons with will benefit persons with will benefit persons with hearing and vision hearing and vision hearing and vision impairments impairments impairments

Composting toilet Yes (2 units) Yes (5 units) Yes (5 units) Yes (2 units),for use during shoulder season

Flush toilets No No No Yes, open during main season only

Kitchen/dish washing Caretaker only Yes Yes Yes

Laundry No No Yes Yes

-- -- ~ --- -

49 ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1 : Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Sewage treatment Effluent Provide two composting Provide five composting Provide five composting New 1,500-gal. septic toilet units adjacent to toilet units between the toilet units between the tank (6'x 12'x 6') to new existing pit toilet dining room and lodging dining room and lodging 1,200-sq.-ft. sand filter to building (30'x 12') building (30'x 12') subsurface discharge Remove existing septic (1 ,500 sq. ft. drain field) tank and pit toilet Remove existing septic Input other effluent into (may need chlorination/ tank new 1,200-gal. septic tank dechlorination with two to new 900-sq.-ft. sand 500-gal. underground Input other effluent into filter to subsurface dis- tanks, 3'x 6') new 1,200-gal. septic tank charge (1 ,200 sq.ft. drain to new 900-sq.-ft. sand field) Replace existing toilets filter to subsurface dis- with new low flush toilets charge (1 ,200 sq. ft. drain Remove existing septic field) tank Provide two composting toilet units to replace existing pit toilet for use during shoulder season

Remove existing septic tank ---- -··

50 -- -

I ALTERNATIVE TOPIC ' I 1 : Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Bio-solids Pack out waste from Need covered bio-solids- Need covered bio-solids- Need covered bio-solids- composting toilets drying bed (bottomless drying bed (bottomless drying bed (bottomless annually 2,500-gal. tank with 2,500-gal. tank with 2,500-gal. tank with gravel, sand, and gravel, sand, and gravel, sand, and underdrain) (8'x 20'), underdrain) (8'x20'), · underdrain) (8'x20') packed out oncejyear packed out oncejyear packed out oncejyear

Pack out waste from Move existing bio-solids Move existing bio-solids composting toilets into new drying bed into new drying bed annually Pack out waste from Pack out waste from composting toilets composting toilets annually annually Monitoring Caretaker monitors water NPS maintains/monitors NPS maintains/monitors NPS maintains/monitors system water quality and water quality and water quality and composting toilet composting toilet composting toilet

51 ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1 : Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Water system

Water available on site? No (packed in for NPS Yes, need 8,000-10,000- Yes, need 8,000-10,000- Yes, need 8,000-10,000- employee) gallon capacity increase gallon capacity increase gallon capacity increase for sprinkler system and for sprinkler system and for sprinkler system and remove sinks from rooms remove sinks from rooms remove sinks from rooms

I Distribution lines Remove existing Line to new tank, replace Line to new tank, replace Line to new tank, replace I undersized section of undersized section of undersized section of

I existing line existing line existing line Tank Remove existing Need new 8,000-10,000- Need new 8,000-10,000- Need new 8,000-10,000- I i gal. tank for water and fire gal. tank for water and fire gal. tank for water and fire protection protection protection Pumps Remove existing New backup pump New backup pump New backup pump Water intake Remove existing Rehab intake Rehab intake Rehab intake Power Sewage Provide solar for Provide solar for Provide solar for Provide solar for composting toilet with composting toilet with composting toilet with composting toilet with propane backup as propane backup as propane backup as propane backup as supplemental heat source supplemental heat source supplemental heat source supplemental heat source for operation during cold, for operation during cold, for operation during cold, for operation during cold, foggy weather foggy weather foggy weather foggy weather Safety Need battery for smoke Need battery or other Need battery or other Need battery or other detectors power source for egress power source for egress power source for egress lighting, smoke detectors lighting, smoke detectors lighting, smoke detectors and alarms and alarms and alarms Water None Need power (solar with Need power (solar with Need power (solar with propane backup) for propane backup) for propane backup) for turbidity /chlorination turbidity /chlorination turbidity1 chlorination monitoring monitoring monitoring - -~-- -

52 ---- ALTERNATIVE TOPIC 1: Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Safety Building egress Closed to public Need emergency exit and Need emergency exit and Need emergency exit and hallway lighting hallway lighting hallway lighting Fire/smoke detection Need detectors with alarm Need detectors with Need detectors with Need detectors with alarm, interconnect with alarm, interconnect with· alarm, interconnect with sprinkler system, install sprinkler system, install sprinkler system, install pull boxes at exits pull boxes at exits pull boxes at exit Sprinkler system No Yes Yes Yes

OR: Enclose stairway; 1- OR: Enclose stairway; 1- OR: Enclose stairway; 1- hr. separation between hr. separation between hr. separation between rooms and corridors rooms and corridors rooms and corridors Railings Need 2 horizontal rails as Need 2 horizontal rails as Need 2 horizontal rails as Need 2 horizontal rails as in original construction in original construction in original construction in original construction Structural No use TO USE SECOND TO USE SECOND TO USE SECOND I FLOOR: EITHER 2-hour FLOOR: EITHER 2-hour FLOOR: EITHER 2-hour I horizontal exit in center of horizontal exit in center of horizontal exit in center of building; need fire building; need fire building; need fire retardant and fire retardant and fire retardant and fire resistance upgrades on resistance upgrades on resistance upgrades on I corridors corridors corridors I ! OR: Construct exterior OR: Construct exterior OR: Construct exterior stair stair stair OR: No second floor OR: No second floor OR: No second floor use; still need 20-minute use; still need 20-minute use; still need 20-minute fire/smoke barriers firejsmoke barriers fire/smoke barriers between rooms and between rooms and between rooms and corridors for first floor corridors for first floor corridors for first floor

53 ALTERNATIVE TOPIC I 1: Caretaker Status 2: Shelter 3: Traditional Service 4: Traditional Service ' with Composting Toilets with Flush Toilets

Furnishings No use Need flame resistant Need flame resistant Need flame resistant mattresses and mattresses and mattresses and furnishings furnishings furnishings Structural Repairs Minimal repairs as Repairs to bring the Repairs to bring the Repairs to bring the required to bring the buildings to a buildings to a buildings to a buildings to a maintainable status; maintainable status; repair maintainable status; repair maintainable status. No repair the porches and the porches and roof the porches and roof restoration work. roof framing. Structures framing. Structures will framing. Structures will will be restored in be restored in accordance be restored in accordance Adapt former rest room accordance with with health/life safety with health/life safety for use as employee health/life safety improvements (i.e., improvements (i.e., quarters improvements (i.e., guardrails). Window and guardrails). Window and guardrails). Window and door repairs, repainting, door repairs, repainting, door repairs, repainting, reroofing, and wood finish reroofing, and wood finish reroofing, and wood finish repairs needed. repairs needed. repairs needed.

Adapt former rest room Adapt former rest room Adapt guest room for use for use as employee for use as employee as employee quarters quarters quarters

54 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Because it is doubtful that sufficient funds would be available immediately to perform all needed repairs as identified in the preferred alternative, work would be phased. The chalets would be operated and maintained as described for alternative 1, caretaker status, until funds are available to begin repair work. Initial work would be performed on Granite Park chalet, and emphasis would continue at Granite Park until all needed repairs are complete. Repairs to Sperry chalet would commence once work is complete at Granite Park. Work would be performed as follows:

PerfOim stabilization/restoration work at Granite Park and Sperry Summer 1994

Prepare design/construction drawings for both chalets 1994

Perform life/safety modifications and repair water and sewer systems at Granite Park (select concessioner /operator) 1995*

Reopen Granite Park chalet to public 1996*

Perform life/safety modifications and repair water and sewer systems at Sperry (select concessioner /operator) **

Reopen Sperry chalet to public **

*If sufficient funding is available **Time frames are dependent on availability of funds

55

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

GENERAL IMPACTS

Under all alternatives, chalet improvements would be contained within existing disturbed habitat and development zones, with the exception of the new wastewater treatment system at Sperry and a new water delivery pipeline route at Granite Park. None of the alternatives considered expand facilities or provide for a level of visitor use beyond that occurring prior to the chalet closures in the fall of 1992.

All of the alternatives considered would eliminate both the discharge of sewage effluent directly to inadequately functioning leach fields and the previous necessity to release septic system bio­ solids to exposed drying beds. The existing developed area at Granite Park affects about 4 acres. Improvements at Granite Park would result in new impacts to approximately 6,500 square feet of soil and vegetation. Approximately 5,500 square feet of this area would be rehabilitated following installation of the water and sewage facilities. Total area disturbed that would not be rehabilitated would be between 244 and 1,400 square feet, depending on the alternative selected. The existing developed area at Sperry affects approximately 10 acres. Improvements at Sperry would result in new impacts to previously undisturbed area of approximately 3,500 to 5,400 square feet, and 6,100 square feet of previously disturbed area. Approximately 8,600 to 10,600 square feet of this area would be rehabilitated while 900 to 1,000 square feet would be permanently altered. Analysis in the following sections shows that all of the alternatives would result in long-term positive net effects on the area's soil, water, vegetative, and wildlife resources.

None of the proposed alternatives would be expected to have any long-term adverse effects on Glacier's resident or migratory threatened or endangered species, beyond those that may already exist due to historical visitor use of these backcountry chalets, campgrounds, and trails. Current impacts are believed to only involve occasional disturbance of feeding bears or disruption of bears traveling through the area from visitor activity. The federally threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is known to frequently use the marshy meadow, glacier lily, and willow habitats adjacent to the Granite Park chalet during the summer months, and it often congregates in numbers within these areas during the fall. The reduced service alternatives at each chalet may · lead to reduced interference to grizzly bear use of habitat immediately adjacent to the chalets, if these alternatives result in an overall reduced number of visitors within the area (see visitor-use impacts section).

Other federally listed endangered or threatened species known to occur within the park include the grey wolf (Canis lupus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and peregrine falcon (Fa/co peregrinus). None of these animals use habitat within the vicinity of the chalets regularly. Wolves may have occasionally traveled through both areas, although both chalets are at an altitude well above their normally used valley bottom habitat. The closest known, regularly used wolf habitat to either chalet is in the lower Camas drainage approximately 10 miles north and 15 miles southwest of Sperry and Granite Park chalets, respectively. Bald eagles may occasionally be seen flying high over the area of the chalets, but suitable nesting or feeding habitat for this species is not available in the immediate vicinity. There would be no adverse effect by any of the alternatives on these species. Peregrine falcons are only rarely observed in the area and would not be affected by any of the alternatives proposed.

57 All of the alternatives considered should have a net positive impact on water quality and wetlands within the vicinity of the chalets, because planned water discharge from new sand filter systems meet design standards (federal and state subsurface water discharge standards). Prior studies have documented the contamination of both surface and terrestrial systems at both chalets under the previous operating conditions. Under all of the alternatives being considered at both chalets, subsurface discharge of sewage effluent would be treated to attain federal and state standards prior to release.

GRANITE PARK NATURAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment

Granite Park chalet is on a high-altitude, open hillside at an elevation of 6,640 feet. Terrain surrounding the perched saddle upon which the chalet buildings sit is generally steep, rocky, rolling hills with isolated pockets of organic soil, subalpine vegetation, and interspersed swales of marshy bottom lands. The chalet sits at the subalpine to alpine transition zone just to the west of, and below Swiftcurrent Pass.

The chalet is named for the profuse outcroppings of igneous rock exposed at this location amidst the common sedimentary strata of the Garden Wall formation. Among the lichen-covered granite outcroppings are dispersed numerous "krummholz" of subalpine fir. Vegetative ground cover where soil accumulation is sufficient is composed of glacier lily, groundsel, mountain sorrel, monkey flower, Brewer's miterwort, alpine timothy, and other subalpine plants common to this vegetative zone of the park. To the south and east of the ridge upon which the chalet sits is a broad marshy valley dominated by interspersed subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce, huckleberry, elderberry, beargrass, alpine willow herb, false hellebore, glacier lilies, and numerous rushes and sedges. Below and to the north of the chalet are denser stands of subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, and other conifer species. No rare or endangered plant species were observed during ground surveys of the area.

Numerous bird species are known to occur within the area. Species of special concern include the golden eagle and black swifts, which are rare, but known to nest in high-altitude rocky cliffs such as those found above the chalet to the north. Both of these species are occasionally sighted from Granite Park chalet (Gniadek, personal communication). Other species commonly observed in this habitat that are likely to be disturbed, at least temporarily by construction activities, include the hermit thrush, golden-crowned kinglet, pine siskin, fox sparrow, dark-eyed junco, and blue grouse.

Bears, both black and grizzly, are commonly seen feeding in the marshy valleys surrounding the Granite Park chalet. They are attracted to the region due to the abundance of suitable food plants and desirable habitat. Mountain goats and bighorn sheep are commonly seen along the Highline Trail leading from Logan Pass to the chalet and are occasional visitors in the immediate vicinity of the chalet facilities. Columbian ground squirrels are abundant and other commonly seen mammals within the region include hoary marmots, mule deer, golden-mantled ground squirrels, red-tailed chipmunks, and red squirrels. Rare species known to occur within the area of the Granite Park chalet include the wolverine, mountain lion, lynx, and marten.

58 A small spring-fed creek occurs approximately 280 yards to the northwest of the chalet. This creek supplies water for the chalet operation. The creek flows most of the year and passes to the north of the campground into a drainage extending to the west, away from the chalet developments. Along its upper reaches, this creek flows over exposed rock outcroppings with essentially no associated riparian or wetland habitat along its edges. Below the water intake point, and to the north of the campground, this creek steps down through several benches and flat areas where a small amount of associated wetland occurs. It is estimated the wetlands comprise less than 1 acre in total. None of the alternatives would require construction activities that would directly affect these wetlands.

The chalets are within a wilderness setting of the park, under a class 1 airshed designation.

A four-site backcountry campground and patrol cabin are approximately lh-mile to the northwest of the chalet within the subalpine/spruce forest. It is common for campground users to visit the chalet facilities.

Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status

Of the alternatives considered, this alternative would result in the maximum reduction in natural resource impacts to the area. No water would be supplied and no wastewater discharge would occur. The number of visitors to the area would be expected to be reduced and associated disturbance to trails, soils, vegetation, and wildlife within the 4-acre area of the current chalet footprint would decrease. Camping within the nearby campground, backcountry hiker visitation, and day use would still be expected to occur, resulting in continuation of the more than 4,000 feet of hiking trail that currently exist within the area. Removal of existing water supply and wastewater treatment facilities would result in some temporary increased impacts to soil, vegetation, and possibly wildlife.

Under alternative 1, structural repairs to the chalet buildings would be minimal and construction impacts from stock pack trips with materials, helicopter deliveries, and the number of workers would be least among the alternatives considered. A work crew of four persons over a 2-month period would be required. These workers would have some impact in terms of increased foot traffic and soil compaction, increased erosion within the area, loss of moisture to plants, and crushed vegetation. These impacts could be minimized by establishing walkways and roping off construction work areas. It is estimated that two helicopter flights and two stock pack trips per week would be required during this time. This would result in noise impacts to backcountry visitors, minor temporary disturbance of any ungulates, bears, or other mammals within the area, and some trail compaction and increased erosion.

Geology /Soils. The existing septic tank, water tank, water intake, and pump system originally created approximately 500 square feet of surface disturbance (surface soils with rock outcroppings). The existing water delivery pipeline impacted approximately 2,800 square feet (310 yards) of surface rock and associated pockets of surface soil, when installed. These original impacts occurred in 1984 and have been mitigated somewhat by natural vegetative growth and surface erosional processes. The existing chalet buildings, rest room/laundry building, composting toilet and horse-hitching rail have impacted approximately 30,000 square feet of soil and vegetation on the top of the ridge. These impacts include loss of vegetation, compaction of soils, decreased permeability, lower soil moisture, and increased erosion. The severity of these impacts would be expected to decrease over time under this alternative with an overall decrease in visitor use of the area.

59 Removal of the water delivery and wastewater facilities would not be expected to result in additional impacts to bedrock, but renewed surface impacts to rock and soil in accomplishing the removals is expected. Soil, surface rock, and vegetation disturbance over an area equal to !h acre is expected during removal of these facilities. Impacts would include accelerated erosion, at least temporarily, until rehabilitation and revegetation is completed. Vegetative planting would be used to speed the recovery process.

The installation of an additional pair of com posting toilets (144 square feet) and the construction of a 100-square-foot effluent collection shed, if accomplished within the existing disturbed zone of the chalet, would be expected to result in impact only to already disturbed soil and exposed rock surfaces.

Additional long-term reductions in soil and surface rock impacts could be expected under this alternative due to a reduction in the frequency and overall number of pack trips required to supply the chalets, their staff, and guests. With traditional service operation in the past, eighteen to twenty pack trips per season were made to the chalets. Under this alternative, only three to four pack trips per season would be anticipated. There may be a temporary increase in stock pack trips to supply materials and food to a crew of four workers during implementation of this alternative. An estimated two trips per week would be needed over a 2-month period.

Stock pack trips result in impacts to over 6 miles of trail between Packers Roost and the chalet. The primary impacts are soil compaction, loss of vegetation through an increase in trail width of 2 to 3 feet beyond that of just foot travel, increased erosion during and following rainfall events, and minor alterations in soil nutrient concentrations because of horse fecal droppings. Under this alternative, only occasional pack trips would be needed for the caretaker and possibly to haul out composted sewage and effluent collection barrels at the end of the season.

Vegetation. Removal of the existing water delivery and wastewater treatment facilities would affect an estimated !h-acre area of rock outcrop and alpine meadow. About 700 to 1,000 square feet of vegetation would be completely eliminated. This would be mitigated by planting and site rehabilitation following the removal. Revegetation efforts are not expected to reintroduce the full complement of species that may currently exist on impacted sites, but they have been found to be an effective method to reestablish 50 percent or more of the species of the original community composition (Kurth, personal communication). Complete revegetation would take several years, but some species could be established within the first year.

Construction of the additional composting toilets would result in the total destruction of 144 square feet of vegetation. However, because much of the area is exposed rock, vegetation on the building site may be minimal. Precipitation that falls on these buildings and the existing chalet structures would not be absorbed into the ground and would be diverted. The extremely shallow soil and rocky nature of the site, however, make the expected impacts of such diversion minimal. Diversion would not be expected to alter the natural composition of vegetation within the surrounding area.

Because the discharge of all wastewater would be eliminated under this alternative, the current practice of piping sewage effluent to a poorly functioning leach field would stop. This would eliminate existing impacts of increased nutrient loading into soils and runoff water downstream from the system (MacConnell 1982). Vegetation growth that has been altered over approximately Y-1 acre within the leach field and bio-solids-drying areas would be expected to slowly return to a more natural state.

60 Wildlife. Existing activities within the chalet area are impacting wildlife by altering vegetation and providing food and other attractants. This alternative would be expected to reduce the long-term level of wildlife attractants and result in less disturbance because fewer visitors would be in the area. Vegetation alterations associated with tank removal, building repairs, and construction would result in temporary displacement or destruction of resident invertebrates and small vertebrates over a less than 2-acre area.

To implement this alternative, some additional short-term impacts to wildlife would be expected. Because no sewage system, bio-solids-drying bed, or sand filter system would be available, and the existing septic tank would be removed, existing sewage bio-solids and effluent within the septic tank would have to either be dumped into the existing exposed drying ponds or pumped into containers and flown out by helicopter. An estimated four helicopter trips would be required to accomplish the removal. In addition, an estimated two helicopter flights per week may be needed to carry necessary equipment and supplies to the chalet to enable repairs, construction of the additional com posting toilets, and removal of the water delivery and wastewater treatment facilities. Each helicopter flight would be expected to temporarily disturb wildlife within the area, including golden eagles, which are known to nest in the rocky cliff habitat to the north of the chalet. Two helicopter flights per week would not be expected to significantly alter golden eagle use of the area or the ability of eagles to raise young. The adverse effects of these flights could be mitigated to some extent by timing the flights for low visitor- and wildlife-use periods and using quieter helicopters.

Threatened and Endangered Species. The grizzly bear is the only threatened or endangered species that uses habitat within the area of the chalet. Human activity in the vicinity of the chalet has impacted grizzly bear use of the area. Bears have been surprised by hikers along trails, and appear to avoid the areas of highest human use at the chalets and the nearby campground. Bears have been observed digging in the leach field area and appear to be attracted to the open bio-solids-drying areas after septic tanks are emptied in the fall. Grizzly bears are frequently seen in the valley immediately to the east of the chalet, and often the activity of visitors has resulted in bear-human interactions and altered bear behavior within that area. This alternative would result in a reduction of these impacts.

Water Quality. Surface water and groundwater within the areas of the chalets are known to be impacted by the wastewater treatment system (MacConnell 1982 and Hauer 1988). These impacts consist of septic leachates entering the surface water systems and the wetland and small ponds at the bottom of the hill to the southwest of the chalet. Significant quantities of undecomposed human waste can be found on the surface of the ground along the ravine, immediately below the septic tank.

The expected decrease in visitation to the area with this alternative and the elimination of all wastewater discharge would eliminate the current water-quality impacts.

Air Quality. The past operation of the chalets has undoubtedly resulted in some intermittent and periodic minor deterioration of air quality from fireplace and kitchen operations. Visitors smoking within the vicinity of the chalet also have contributed in a minor way to the decline of the pristine air quality within the area. The extent of these impacts has not been measured. This alternative would result in some decrease to these impacts, because chalet fire and kitchen operations would be eliminated and visitation would be reduced. The caretaker quarters would have some cooking activity and a woodstove for heating, so all impacts to air quality would not be eliminated.

61 Construction Impacts:

Previously disturbed areas ...... 1,244 square feet Undisturbed new area ...... 0 square feet

Total area of construction impact • • . • • • • • • • . . • • . • . • • . . . . 1 ,244 square feet

Total area to be rehabilitated • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • . . • • • • • • • 1.000 square feet Total area without rehabilitation (facilities) •..••..••••.•..••• 244 square feet

Cubic feet of bedrock and soil to move ...... 0 cubic feet

Other Impacts:

Nutrient discharge ...... Eliminated Stock pack trips ...... 3 to 4 per year Area use (expected) ...... Decrease

Construction: People ...... 4 workers Time ...... 2 months Helicopter flights ...... 2 per week Stock trips ...... 2 per week Area temporarily impacted ...... Y.! acre

Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter

Although there would be no food service available under this alternative, public use of the chalet would be expected to be high, perhaps at capacity, during visitor season. Water supply and wastewater facilities for a public-use kitchen would be required. Therefore, many of the environmental impacts associated with the traditional level of service would also occur under this alternative.

This alternative calls for removing all flush toilets and replacing the existing two-unit (144-square­ foot) composting toilet building with a new eight-unit (about 576-square-foot) building (see Granite Park alternative 2 map).

Geology/Soils. All of the impacts of past chalet operations on the soil and rock formations described under alternative 1 would be expected to continue under this alternative. Relocation and increase in the number of composting toilets would result in direct impacts to a 576-square­ foot area of previously disturbed soil and vegetation along the edge of the ridge to the northwest of the main chalet building. This site is composed almost entirely of exposed bedrock formation. Removal of the existing composting toilet facilities and rehabilitation of the area would result in the elimination of 144 square feet of surface impacts at the current toilet site.

Installation of the sand filter, dosing siphon, drain field, and bio-solids-drying bed would require blasting and removal of approximately 12,200 cubic feet of bedrock and would cause permanent disturbance to approximately 4,100 square feet of surface area. This disturbance could be partially mitigated provided the distribution pipes, sand filter, and dosing siphon could be placed

62 completely underground and the surface area over these facilities (approximately 3, 700 square feet) could be revegetated. The bio-solids-drying bed and filter system could also be placed within the already-disturbed area of the existing leach field, but the 30 to 40 percent slope would require considerable excavation. An alternative site would be at the bottom of the draw (below the septic tank), where there is a series of small open beds, used for capturing and drying bio­ solids in the past. However, the slope along the draw bottom is 15 to 30 percent, and would also require some additional excavation to level the system units.

The proposed new waterline route under this alternative would be directly uphill from the existing line, at a point approximately 85 feet southwest of the existing pumphouse, along the bottom of a vegetated draw and across an existing rock bench to the storage tank. This would require the blasting of bedrock and approximately 240 yards of new disturbance to soil and vegetation. An estimated 5,350 cubic feet of bedrock would be removed to install the line. Permanent alteration to surface soil and vegetation would occur over an estimated 1,800 square feet.

The installation of a new water storage tank would be expected to result in permanent impact orily to already-disturbed soil and exposed rock surfaces.

Construction activities associated with this alternative would involve an estimated eight to nine people, working 10-day shifts, over two summer seasons. During installation of the new sand filter, bio-solids-drying system, water delivery pipeline, water storage tank, and composting toilets, a considerable amount of temporary soil and vegetation disturbance would be expected to occur over an area of approximately 1 acre. Impacts would include soil compaction, vegetation crushing, accelerated erosion, decreased water-retention capacities, and changes in nutrient concentrations and soil chemistry within exposed pockets of soil over the rock outcroppings. Because the chalet would be open to public use, numerous structural repairs and safety improvements would have to be made. None of the needed repairs or fire-safety improvements would be expected to have long-term environmental impacts, but they would add to the overall impact of construction in terms of increased foot traffic and soil compaction, increased erosion within the area, loss of moisture to plants, and crushed vegetation.

As in alternative 1, the lack of meal and hotel services in this alternative would be expected to result in a reduction in the frequency and overall number of stock pack trips required to supply the chalets, their staff, and guests. With the traditional service operation in the past, eighteen to twenty stock trips a season were made to the chalets for supply purposes. Under this alternative, only three to four pack trips a season would be anticipated. Stock pack trips result in impacts to over 6 miles of trail between Packers Roost and the chalet. The primary impacts are soil compaction, loss of vegetation through an increase in trail width of 2 to 3 feet beyond that of foot travel alone, increased erosion during and following rainfall events, and minor alterations in soil nutrient concentrations because of horse fecal droppings. Under this alternative, only occasional pack trips would be needed for the shelter manager and it is anticipated that dried septic tank bio-solids and composted sewage would be hauled out every 3 to 5 years.

There could be a temporary increase in stock pack trips to supply materials and food to a crew of eight to nine workers during construction. An estimated four pack trips per week would be needed to supply the work activity. During past chalet operations, two pack trips per week were needed to supply food and propane gas.

63 This alternative calls for construction of a second stairway and other fire-safety improvements, or the elimination of all second-story use by the public. Should closure of the second story be the choice, the number of visitors staying at the chalet would be reduced. This in turn would reduce environmental impacts associated with activities and facilities required to service guests, including the number of horse pack supply trips and the overall size and capacity of wastewater treatment facilities that would be needed, as well as the extent of direct impacts of visitor activities on the resources. However, the significance of these reductions in relation to the overall impacts that would be occurring with any level of chalet operation would be minimal.

Vegetation. The impacts to vegetation of past chalet operations described in alternative 1 would be expected to continue under this alternative.

Construction of the new com posting toilets, sewer pipeline, intermittent sand filter, dosing siphon, and bio-solids-drying bed would result in the elimination of approximately 4,700 square feet of vegetation. However, because much of this area is exposed bedrock and includes at least 1,900 square feet of previously disturbed soil and vegetation. Areas disturbed during the construction of the new facilities would be rehabilitated and the new sand filter system could be placed entirely below ground level and the overlying surface revegetated. The pipeline routes would be revegetated. Revegetation efforts would not be expected to reintroduce the full complement of species that may exist on impacted sites, but such efforts have been found to be an effective method for reestablishing 50 percent or more of the species of the original community composition. Complete revegetation would take several years, but some species would be established within the first year.

The installation of a new water delivery pipeline would eliminate all existing vegetation over a previously undisturbed area of approximately 1,800 square feet. Upon completion of installation, the disturbed areas along the route would be treated and revegetated to reduce long-term resource impacts. Exposed portions and drain covers along the previous line would be removed and any exposed disturbed areas rehabilitated. This would result in reduced overall visual and environmental impacts of the chalet's water delivery system.

The piping of sewage effluent to a poorly functioning leach field would be stopped under this alternative. This would eliminate the existing impacts of increased nutrient loading into soils and runoff water downstream from the system. Vegetation growth that has been altered over approximately v,. acre within the. existing leach field and bio-solids-drying areas would be expected to slowly return to a more natural state.

Precipitation that falls on the new com posting toilets, and wastewater treatment facilities as well as the existing chalet structures would not be absorbed into the ground and would be diverted. The extremely shallow soil and rock nature of the site, however, make the expected impacts of such diversion minimal. Diversion would not be expected to alter the natural composition of vegetation in the surrounding area.

Construction workers making building repairs and fire-safety improvements would be expected to cause some temporary minor vegetation disturbances in the immediate vicinity of the chalet. These impacts would be due to soil compaction, trampling, root exposure, and erosion.

Wildlife. Existing activities within the chalet area are impacting wildlife by altering vegetation and providing food and other attractants. Under this alternative, these impacts would be expected to continue because it is unlikely there would be any reduction in overall visitor activity.

64 Soil and vegetation alterations associated with building repairs, safety improvements, and the construction of the water delivery and wastewater treatment facilities would result in temporary displacement and destruction of resident invertebrates and small vertebrates over an area of up to 4 acres. The degree to which this area could be rehabilitated following construction would determine the extent and duration of these impacts.

Long-term environmental impacts could be expected to decrease over those currently existing within the wastewater treatment area. The present, poorly functioning leach field would be removed, thereby eliminating any attractant to bears, and stimulus for wildlife to dig within the area. The exposed bio-solids-drying areas would be eliminated and rehabilitated.

With the implementation of this alternative, some additional short-term wildlife impacts would be expected. These impacts include disturbance from blasting into the rock substrate to facilitate the installation of wastewater treatment tanks, and noise disturbance from helicopter supply flights. An estimated 10 hours (1 hour per day) of helicopter flights would be needed to haul filter sand, non-packable equipment, and construction supplies into this wilderness backcountry area. Although the specific impacts of helicopter flights have not been documented, each flight would be expected to temporarily disturb any large wildlife species within the area. Temporary disturbance to perch sites, nesting, and use of the area would also be expected to any golden eagles that may be within the area at the time of these flights. The frequency of this disturbance is not expected to have significant impacts. Construction activity noise, the number of people, and equipment operations within the area would also be expected to disturb wildlife travel through the area and use of adjacent habitats. The extent to which these activities would impact wildlife has not been documented, however, the extent of total available habitat impacted would constitute less than 0.0001 percent of the alpine habitat that is available to these species.

Threatened and Endangered Species. The grizzly bear is the only threatened or endangered species that uses habitat within the area of the chalet. Human activity in the vicinity of the chalet has impacted grizzly bear use of the area. Bears have been surprised by hikers along trails, and appear to avoid the areas of highest human use at the chalets and the nearby campground. Bears have been observed digging within the leach field area and appear to be attracted to the open bio-solids-drying areas after septic tanks are emptied in the fall. Grizzly bears are frequently seen in the valley immediately to the east of the chalet and often the activity of visitors have disturbed bears within that area. This alternative would reduce these impacts, through the elimination of the leach field and bio-solids-drying attractant. Any existing impacts from human activity would continue.

Water Quality. Currently, surface and groundwater within the area of the chalet are known to be impacted by the wastewater treatment system (Hauer 1988). These impacts are described under alternative 1. This alternative would greatly reduce the current water-quality impacts through the elimination of the poorly functioning leach field. Nutrient enrichment of groundwater and surface water would be greatly reduced and all wastewater releases would meet state and federally authorized discha,rge standards. Routine monitoring of the wastewater treatment system would ensure that the system is functioning properly and that discharge standards are met.

Repair and relining of the water intake pond is expected to cause temporary impacts to that stream in terms of increased sedimentation and turbidity, adjacent surface erosion, resuspended solids, increased nutrient concentrations, and disturbance of benthic organisms and possibly plants. Secondary effects could include changes in plankton production associated with

65 increased nutrient availability. These impacts would be minimal in comparison with normal periodic effects of rainfall and spring runoff events.

Air Quality. The chalets are in a wilderness setting of the park, under a class 1 airshed designation. The past operation of the chalets has undoubtedly resulted in some intermittent and periodic minor deterioration of air quality from fireplace and kitchen operations. Visitors smoking within the vicinity of the chalet also have contributed in a minor way to the decline of pristine air quality in the area. The extent of these impacts has not been measured. This alternative would not be expected to result in any decrease in previous impacts, because chalet . fire and kitchen operations would continue and visitation would not be expected to decline. In addition, the caretaker quarters would have some cooking activity and a woodstove for heat, which would impact local air quality.

Construction Impacts:

Previously disturbed areas ...... 3,800 square feet Undisturbed new area ...... 2,700 square feet

Total area of construction impact ...... 6,500 square feet Total area to be rehabilitated ...... • • . . . • . . . • • . . . . . 5,500 square feet Total area without rehabilitation (facilities) ...... • . . . . 1,000 square feet

Cubic feet of bedrock and soil to move ...... 19,000 cubic feet

Other Impacts

Nutrient discharge (subsurface) ...... 13.6 to 34.0 grams per day Stock pack trips ...... 3 to 4 per year Area use ...... No decrease

Construction: People ...... 8 to 9 workers Time ...... 2 seasons Helicopter flights ...... 10 days - 1 hour per day Stock trips ...... 4 per week Area temporarily impacted ...... 1 acre

Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets

A full range of traditional services including employee showers, but employing composting toilets, would be provided under this alternative. Impacts of fire safety improvements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Geology/Soils. Long-term impacts to soils would be similar to those discussed under alternative 2, with the addition of more stock pack supply trips, causing impacts to over 6 miles of trail between Packers Roost and the chalet. The primary impacts would be soil compaction, loss of vegetation through an increase in trail width of 2 to 3 feet beyond that of just foot travel, increased erosion during and following rainfall events, and minor alterations in soil nutrient concentrations because of horse fecal droppings.

66 Construction activities associated with this alternative would be similar to those involved with alternative 2. Temporary increases in stock pack trips to supply materials and food to a crew of 8 to 9 workers during implementation of this alternative would not differ from those of alternative 2.

Vegetation. Long-term impacts to vegetation would be similar to those discussed under alternative 2. Construction workers making building repairs and fire safety improvements would be expected to cause some temporary minor vegetation disturbances in the immediate vicinity of the chalet similar to those discussed under alternative 2. These impacts would be due to soil compaction, trampling, root exposure, and erosion.

Wildlife. Long-term impacts to wildlife would be similar to those expected under alternative 2. Short-term impacts associated with construction activities and implementation of this alternative would not be expected to differ significantly from those described under alternative 2.

Threatened and Endangered Species. The grizzly bear is the only threatened or endangered species that uses habitat within the area of the chalet. Impacts to this species would not be expected to differ significantly from those described under alternative 2.

Water Quality. Long-term impacts to water quality would be similar to those expected under alternative 2. The same level of wastewater treatment facilities called for and discussed under alternative 2 would be required. Repair and relining of the water intake pond is expected to cause temporary impacts to that stream in terms of increased sedimentation and turbidity, adjacent surface erosion, resuspended solids, increased nutrient concentrations, and disturbance of benthic organisms and possibly plants. Secondary effects could include changes in plankton production associated with increased nutrient availability. These impacts would be minimal in comparison with normal periodic effects of rainfall and spring runoff events.

Air Quality. Long-term impacts to air quality would be similar to those discussed under alternative 2.

Construction Impacts:

Previously disturbed areas ...... 3,800 square feet Undisturbed new area ...... 2,700 square feet

Total area of construction impact . • . • . . . . • . . • • . . . • . . . • . . 6,500 square feet Total area to be rehabilitated • • • • . • ...... • • . . • • • • 5,500 square feet Total area without rehabilitation (facilities) . • • • • • • . . • . . • • • • 1 ,000 square feet

Cubic feet of bedrock and soil to move ...... 19,000 cubic feet

Other Impacts:

Nutrient discharge ...... 13.6 to 34.2 grams per day Stock pack trips ...... 18-20 per year Area use ...... No decrease

Construction: People ...... 8 to 9 workers

67 Time ...... 2 seasons Helicopter flights ...... 10 days - 1 hour per day Stock trips ...... 4 per week Area temporarily impacted ...... 1 acre

Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets

Of the alternatives considered, this alternative would result in the maximum level of natural resource impacts. Essentially all of the services that are provided under alternative 3 would be provided under this alternative, with the addition of flush toilets. Low-volume flush toilets would be available to the public during chalet operation periods and the existing backup composting toilets would be available for high-use periods and shoulder seasons. The wastewater system could be placed within the already disturbed area of the existing leach field, but would require considerable excavation to install. Effluent from the fully operational system would go through a sand filter to subsurface discharge (see Granite Park alternative 4 map). A new water supply line would be installed between the existing pump house and the water tank, resulting in impacts to areas not previously directly disturbed. The overall area of disturbance would be about 1 acre during the construction phase.

Long-term environmental impacts associated with wastewater treatment in this alternative would be expected to be less than those occurring with the former wastewater system. The poorly functioning leach field would be removed, thereby eliminating any attractant to bears or other wildlife. The exposed bio-solids-drying areas would be eliminated and rehabilitated. Surface water and groundwater quality within the vicinity of the chalet would be expected to improve.

All of the new waste treatment facilities could be placed below ground level and revegetated over the surface, with the exception of the bio-solids-drying bed and chlorine dosing units.

Long-term effects would be the same as described for alternative 2, with the following exception: No reduction in horse packing supply operations could be expected with this alternative, because the chalet service operations would have a regular supply demand during the summer season. Sewage compost or dried bio-solids would have to be packed out every year.

Impacts of fire safety improvements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Geology/Soils. All of the existing impacts to the soil and rock formations described under alternative 1 due to past chalet operations would be expected to continue or expand with this alternative.

Under this alternative, the impacts of moving and increasing the number of composting toilets described under alternative 2, or adding a single set of additional composting toilets as in alternative 1, would not occur. This would reduce impacts to approximately 750 square feet of surface area. However, under this alternative, the flush toilet system and traditional service chalet operations would require an increase in the size of the sand filter and drain field over that required by alternative 2.

The use of flush instead of composting toilets would increase the area disturbed for the sand filter and drain field by 900 square feet, and decrease the surface area disturbance for new sewer lines by about 750 square feet.

68 Installation of power lines, a sand filter system, dosing siphon, chlorination unit, drain field, and bio-solids-drying bed would require blasting and removal of 26,000 cubic feet of bedrock, and permanent disturbance to 4,800 square feet of surface area. Soil and bedrock impacts associated with this disturbance and mitigating measures required under this alternative would be the same as described for alternative 2.

The new waterline and storage tank proposed under this alternative would be the same as that described under alternative 2 and the impacts would be similar to those already described under that alternative.

Construction activities associated with this alternative would also be similar to those involved with alternative 2.

Because full chalet and meal services would be provided under this alternative, no reduction from past levels can be expected in the frequency and overall number of stock pack trips required to supply the chalets, their staff, and guests. With traditional service operation in the past, eighteen to twenty stock trips a season were made to the chalets for supply purposes. Stock pack trips would result in impacts to over 6 miles of trail as described under alternative 3. Under this alternative, two or more pack trips would be needed to haul out bio-solids each year.

Temporary increases in stock pack trips to supply materials and food to a crew of 8 to 9 workers during implementation of this alternative would not differ from that of alternative 2.

As in alternative 2, this alternative calls for construction of a second stairway and other fire safety improvements, or the elimination of all second-story use by the public. Should closure of the second story be the choice, the number of visitors staying at the chalet would be reduced. This in turn would reduce environmental impacts associated with activities and facilities required to service guests as described under alternative 2.

Vegetation. The impacts to vegetation of past chalet operations described in alternative 1 would be expected to continue under this alternative.

Construction of a new intermittent sand filter, dosing siphon, bio-solids-drying bed, chlorination unit, and drain field would result in the destruction of approximately 5,300 square feet of vegetation. Although disturbance for composting units is not required, the sand filter unit and drain field required by this alternative is larger, so the overall impact to surface vegetation would be slightly greater than under alternative 2. Impacts and mitigating measures for these facilities would be the same as those described under alternative 2.

The installation of the new water delivery pipeline would result in the same vegetative impacts as described under alternative 2.

As in alternative 2, the piping of sewage effluent to a poorly functioning leach field would be eliminated under this alternative. This would reduce the impacts of increased nutrient loading into soils and runoff water downstream from the system. Vegetation growth that has been _ altered over approximately v.. acre within the existing leach field and bio-solids-drying areas would be expected to slowly return to a more natural state.

Precipitation that falls on the new wastewater treatment facilities as well as the existing chalet structures would not be absorbed into the ground and would be diverted. The extremely shallow

69 soil and rocky nature of the site however, make the expected impacts of such diversion minimal. Diversion would not be expected to alter the natural composition of vegetation in the surrounding area.

Construction workers making building repairs and fire safety improvements would be expected to cause some temporary minor vegetation disturbances in the immediate vicinity of the chalet similar to those under alternatives 2 and 3. These impacts would be due to soil compaction, trampling, root exposure, and erosion. No impacts would be expected to occur to wetland areas within the vicinity of the chalet. Current impacts from the existing wastewater system (MacConneiJ 1982) would be eliminated.

Wildlife. Existing activities within the chalet area are impacting wildlife by altering vegetation and providing food and other attractants. Under this alternative, these impacts would be expected to· continue because it is unlikely there would be any reduction in overall visitor activity.

Short-term impacts associated with construction activities and implementation of this alternative would not be expected to differ significantly from those described under alternative 2.

As with alternative 2, long-term environmental impacts could be expected to decrease over those currently existing within the wastewater treatment area. The former, poorly functioning leach field would be removed, thereby eliminating any attractant to bears and stimulus for wildlife to dig within the area. The exposed bio:solids-drying areas would be eliminated and rehabilitated. Any long-term impacts to wildlife associated with stock pack trips (disturbance, attracting to stock feces, etc.) would be expected to be greatest under this alternative, because of the expected need for additional stock supply trips.

Threatened and Endangered Species. The grizzly bear is the only threatened or endangered species that uses habitat within the area of the chalet. Impacts to this species would not be expected to differ significantly from those described under alternative 2.

Water Quality. Currently, surface water and groundwaterwithin the area of the chalet are known to be impacted by the wastewater treatment system (MacConnell 1982 and Hauer 1988). These impacts are described under alternative 1. As in alternatives 2 and 3, this alternative would reduce the current water-quality impacts through the elimination of the poorly functioning leach field. Nutrient enrichment of groundwater and surface water would be greatly reduced and all wastewater releases would meet state- and federally authorized discharge standards. Routine monitoring would be required to insure that the filter and chlorination systems were working adequately.

As in alternatives 2 and 3, repair and relining of the water intake pond is expected to cause temporary impacts to that stream in terms of increased sedimentation and turbidity, adjacent surface erosion, resuspended solids, increased nutrient concentrations, and disturbance of benthic organisms and possibly plants. Secondary effects could include changes in plankton production associated with increased nutrient availability. These impacts would be minimal in comparison with normal periodic effects of rainfall and spring runoff events.

Air Quality. Impacts to air quality in the vicinity of the chalet under this alternative is not expected to differ from that describe under alternative 2.

70 Construction Impacts:

Previously disturbed areas ...... 4,500 square feet Undisturbed new area ...... 2,100 square feet

Total area of construction Impact ...... 6,600 square feet Total area to be rehabilitated ...... 5,200 square feet Total area without rehabilitation (facilities) ...... 1 ,400 square feet

Cubic feet of bedrock and soil to move ...... 26,000 cubic feet

Other Impacts:

Nutrient discharge ...... 56.8 to 85.2 grams per day Stock pack trips ...... 18-20 per year Area use ...... No decrease

Construction: People ...... 8 to 9 workers Time ...... 2 seasons Helicopter flights ...... 10 days - 1 hour per day Stock trips ...... 4 per week Area temporarily impacted ...... 1 acre

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment

As previously described, the Granite Park chalet was constructed in 1913 by the Great Northern Railway. The chalets provided visitors with a back country experience for over 75 years, with brief interruptions during wartimes. The service included hearty meals and lodging in a rustic mountain atmosphere. The Great Northern Railway sold the chalets to the NPS in 1954 for $1. From that time, they were operated under a concession contract on a seasonal basis.

In addition to being listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Granite Park chalet is a national historic landmark. The Granite Park chalet and dormitory are significant for their architecture (materials, rusticity, simplicity, and a "chalet appearance" reminiscent of high mountain European architecture) and for their role in the development of Glacier National Park by providing lodging and food in an isolated area of the park. The buildings are a living/working museum of the early park era (NPS 1975a). The historic district comprises the chalet and dormitory, which were constructed of lumber, native stone, and logs.

A thorough and intensive surface survey of the entire Granite Park chalet area for archeological resources was conducted in 1985 (NPS 1984). No archeological resources were found, and no known archeological resources would be affected by any of the alternatives proposed. Further subsurface evaluations may be needed prior to construction.

71 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status

Under alternative 1, the most significant impact to the buildings would result from their non-use status. Their remote location would make them difficult to protect, monitor, and maintain. Buildings that are not in continuous use deteriorate at a much faster rate than those that are used. Although a caretaker would be on site to repair observable problems, the buildings would suffer functional deterioration caused by problems that are not readily detectible. Detection of and response to deficiencies would be less prompt and less effective than if the structure were in use. After the initial stabilization work, closure of the chalet would result in minimal preservation and maintenance, and, with very little onsite occupation, would permit some chance of vandalism and illegal entry. Although a caretaker would be on site to watch for vandalism, there would not be as much protection as if the building were occupied.

Minor maintenance would be performed by the caretaker, with larger jobs competing for priority with other parkwide needs.

Visitors could attempt to enter the buildings illegally, particularly for shelter, or out of curiosity. This occurs to some extent now, but would increase greatly during the summer tourist season, when more people are using the backcountry. The presence of an on-site caretaker would mitigate this concern.

The buildings would be maintained to a historic-appearance rather than a public-use standard. Fewer changes would be needed to meet current health/life safety codes, but it is possible that increased deterioration could occur before major maintenance could be performed. Deterioration of wooden structural members could be markedly accelerated within a decade, resulting in the loss of original fabric as well as threatening the buildings' structural integrity.

Buildings would suffer faunal encroachment by animals such as mice, pack rats, goats, bears, birds, and even insects that would not be readily controllable. Their wastes and lifestyles would contribute to the deterioration of the buildings. Concerns about rodent-borne diseases could make public use or regular maintenance more of a concern than at present. The possibility of future use of the buildings as a livingjworking museum would be reduced.

The landscape immediately surrounding the structures would be altered with less impact by visitors. The surrounding natural environment would encroach on the building, increasing deterioration possibilities.

Fire detection and alarm systems would be installed to provide some protection from fire and to protect against illegal occupants. No fire-suppression systems would be installed, increasing the risk of losing the building to an interior fire. Although the structures could be lost, the buildings would be recorded to Historic American Building Standards to mitigate the loss of valuable historic information.

At the very least, the cultural values imbued in the visitor experience of traditional use of these buildings, whether overnight stays, meals, or simply a visit to the interior, would be lost. The buildings would be perceived as monuments, rather than chalets. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) required under §106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is under way. Table 5, Historic Resource Undertakings -Granite Park Chalet, details the effects these actions would have on the historic structures.

72 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter

Reducing the number of services available would result in fewer operational staff than historically available. Detection of, and response to, deficiencies would be less prompt and less effective than in the past. Although there would be a chalet operator(s) to monitor use, there could be increased opportunities for unattended use by visitors, increasing the likelihood of the occurrence of inappropriate uses, such as vandalism. Continued use of the chalets would allow for continuity of the historic use of the chalets as a living/working museum of the early park era, although use would not be precisely the same as in the past (no food provided).

The buildings would be restored and rehabilitated to meet health/life safety concerns and maintain their historic appearance. All restoration work would meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and NPS-28, Cultural Resource Management Guideline. The buildings would be restored to their historical appearances with the exception of the few health/life safety issues described later. This would preserve the significant features that made the chalets eligible for listing in the National Register.

Under alternative 2, the guardrails would be restored to meet current code requirements. These guardrails were rebuilt many times in the past and are not historic fabric. They would be rebuilt to historic-appearance standards, restoring the original appearance of the chalet.

Although the additional composting toilets would result in new structures intruding on the historic scene, they would be designed to be compatible in terms of materials, roof lines, and colors. The proposed locations were already intensively surveyed for archeological resources and no resources were found.

Fire-detection and alarm systems would be installed in the buildings to provide protection to the visitors. These systems would visually impact the interior spaces and would have to be carefully designed to be unobtrusive. Fire-suppression impacts would be the same as described for alternative 1, although fire retardant would be applied to all interior finishes, reducing the fire spread rating of the interior.

The addition of a second stairway to the front of the structure is required for additional egress. This stair would be a new structure designed compatibly with the existing structure.

Because of the elimination of food service and linen service, certain values imbued in the historic visitor-use experience would be lost. The loss would not be as drastic as closure of the buildings to the public would be under alternative 1. Table 5 details the effects these actions would have on the historic resources. Glacier National Park will ensure that the project design for new construction is compatible with the historic and architectural qualities of Sperry and Granite Park chalets, in terms of scale, massing, color, and materials, and is responsive to the recommended approaches to new construction set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, and that the design and specifications for the project are developed in consultation with the Montana SHPO.

Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets

Under this alternative, food and linen service would continue to be provided to the public, thus preserving the traditional qualities of use considered significant in the determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register.

73 The buildings would be restored and rehabilitated under this alternative as described for alternative 2.

As under alternative 2, the guardrails would be restored to meet current code requirements. These guardrails were rebuilt many times in the past and are not historic fabric. They would be rebuilt to historic-appearance standards, restoring the original appearance of the chalet.

There would be good on-site observation of the historic resources to ensure that timely maintenance and protection is provided. However, continued use of the structure would result in increased wear and tear and eventual deterioration of the resources, requiring continual maintenance that could require replacement of historic fabric. Preservation maintenance of the buildings would occur to assure their safe use and maintain their historic appearance.

Impacts of fire-safety and accessibility improvements would be as described for alternative 2.

Installation of a sand filter for sewage may affect presently unknown subsurface archeological resources. Additional archeological surface survey work in the chalet areas would take place to assure that proposed locations for sewage treatment and water storage and supply lines do not disturb presently unknown archeological resources. Any resources found would be recorded on site and analyzed as to type and use. Resources would be accessioned into the park's museum collection as appropriate.

Consultation with the SHPO and the ACHP under §106 of NHPA would be required for the health/life safety modifications, addition of new structures, and ground disturbance.

Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets

This alternative most closely matches the historic operation of the chalets prior to the last season of operation in 1992. Food and linen service would continue to be provided to the public, thus preserving the traditional qualities of use considered significant in the determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register.

Impacts of alternative 4 wouid be the same as for alternative 3.

74 Table 5: Historic Resource Undertakings, Granite Park Chalet

Impact Effect Remarks Section Alternative 1 : Caretaker Status

Closure AE Buildings not used, loss of Alternatives structure by not using. Loss of Considered - Granite cultural values Park; Cultural Resource Impacts- Granite Park Rodents AE Waste and disease Cultural Resource Impacts- Granite Park Landscape NAE Loss of historic landscape. Meet Cultural Resource Sec. of the Interior Standards for Impacts- Granite Rehab. Park Fire detection and NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource alarm system Standards for Rehab. Impacts - Granite Park Alternative 2: Shelter Reduced services NAE Less staff to respond to Cultural Resource maintenance issues in a timely Impacts- Granite manner Park Restoration NAE Structures restored to historic Stabilization/ appearance Structural Repairs; Cultural Resource Impacts - Granite Park Restore guardrail NAE Restoration, life safety Stabilization I Structural Repairs; Cultural Resource Impacts - Granite Park New composting NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Alternatives toilets Standards for Rehab. Considered - Granite Park; Cultural Resource Impacts - Granite Park Provide for an NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Alternatives accessible site, trail Standards for Rehab., Americans Considered - Granite and structure with Disabilities Accessibility Act Park; Cultural access (ADA) Resource Impacts - Granite Park

75 Impact Effect Remarks Section Construct second NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource exit stair Standards for Rehab. Life Safety Impacts - Granite Park Fire detection and NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource alarm system Standards for Rehab. Life Safety Impacts - Granite Park Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets Restoration NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource Standards for Rehab. Impacts - Granite Park Restore Guardrail NAE Restoration, Life Safety Cultural Resource Impacts - Granite Park Construct 2nd exit NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource stair Standards for Rehab. Life Safety Impacts- Granite Park Construct NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Alternatives accessible trail Standards for Rehab., Americans Considered - Granite with Disabilities Accessibilities Park; Cultural Act (ADA) Resource Impacts - Granite Park New composting NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Alternatives toilets Standards for Rehab. Considered - Granite Park; Cultural Resource Impacts- Granite Park Fire detection and NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource alarm system Standards for Rehab. Life Safety Impacts- Granite Park Alternative 4: Traditional Services with Flush Toilets See impacts for Alternative 3

Notes:

NE - No Effect NAE - No Adverse Effect AE - Adverse Effect

Impacts must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and NPS-28 Cultural Resources Management Guideline in order to qualify for No Adverse Effect.

76 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

Affected Environment

The following description of the social and economic characteristics and the impacts expected to result from implementation of the various alternatives are generalized for both Granite Park and Sperry chalets.

The chalets were originally constructed and operated by the Great Northern Railroad as a means of drawing visitors to Glacier National Park by railway and allowing them to experience off-road areas of the park. Although the chalets were never particularly successful from a financial point of view, they were an important part of the visitor experience provided by the railroad company, and were popular with guests.

Since the 1950s, when Granite Park and Sperry chalets were acquired by the NPS, they have been operated by the Luding family (Belton Chalet, Inc.) under a concessions authorization with the NPS.

Rehabilitation of the chalets and utility systems would allow for the continued operation of the chalets for use by the public. The level of service that would be available would be dependent on the size and type of the utility system provided. Economic feasibility of operating at this level would affect the structure and terms of any concessions or management contract offered for the operation of the chalets.

Public comments received through the seeping process indicated that most respondents would like to see the chalet operations continue at a level similar to past chalet operations, that is, provide food service to day and overnight guests and overnight accommodations with some type of bedding provided. Suggestions that the chalets be operated by a nonprofit organization, that costs of operation be subsidized through park entrance or hiker fees, and that past levels of service be expanded were also received during seeping.

In the past, the chalet concessioner has contracted with the operator of the horse concession to pack supplies to and from the chalets. The horse concession also provides an alternative mode of transportation for guests and day users who prefer to ride horseback rather than hike to the chalets.

Elimination of visitor services at the chalets would have a continued impact on the annual revenue of the horse concessioner. In 1992, packing services to the chalets provided the horse concession with about 5.5 percent of its annual gross revenue. Conversely, eliminating the need of providing packing services would in turn eliminate the need for some employees and their housing, and for maintaining packing stock.

Impacts on Local, State, or Regional Economy

None of the alternatives considered in this assessment would have a significant impact on the state, regional, or local economy. There would be some economic activity during the construction phase of alternatives 2, 3, and 4 and operational staffing changes under each of the alternatives.

No effects to other federal or state agencies are expected.

77 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status

No public use of facilities would be allowed. Tax income generated by the business would be eliminated and revenue from out-of-state visitors coming specifically to stay at the chalets would no longer be available.

Funding for the caretaker position, maintenance and operation of toilet facilities, and stabilization maintenance would need to come from new appropriations, private funding, or be reallocated from existing park programs.

Closure of the chalets would also impact the horse concession operation. In 1992, approximately 15 percent of the horse concession gross revenue was derived from day rides to either Granite Park chalet from the Many Glacier corral or to Sperry chalet from the Lake McDonald corral. Although the chalets remain a popular destination for horseback rides from the two corrals, a comparison of the 1992 and 1993 visitor-use figures reported by the horse concession show about a 68 percent decrease in rides taken to the chalets in July and August. It should be noted that some of the decrease can be attributed to unusually wet and rainy conditions during those months in 1993 as well as a temporary closure of the Sperry trail due to wet trail conditions. Some decrease in ridership and revenues would be expected under alternative 1.

Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter

Although a small business opportunity would be created, revenues and tax income for the area would be limited. This business would continue to lend itself to a small "Mom and Pop" organization.

Funding for the caretaker position, operation and maintenance of toilet facilities, and stabilization maintenance would need to come from new appropriations, private funding, or be reallocated from existing park programs.

Construction or rehabilitation funding would need to come from new appropriations or private funding. Some additional NPS jobs would be created for construction and operations.

A contract operator may be needed to administer reservations and be on site to control use and provide housekeeping services. A rate structure would need to be developed to cover costs of the operation (perhaps $15-20 dollars per night). Life safety alternatives that call for closure of second-story accommodations for both guests and employees would impact revenue and would need to be offset by increased rates to make the operation economically feasible for a contract operator.

Economic feasibility of the operation will also be affected by other operating factors such as the level of maintenance responsibilities required of the operator and the cost of transporting supplies by stock or helicopter. The terms of any agreement and the rates charged for the service would need to be adjusted to cover operating costs and any additional investment required of the operator. There will likely be resistance from the visiting public if the rates for the shelter service are too high (see "Purpose and Need, Issues Not Analyzed, Fees" section).

78 Horse concession revenues would be affected by the decrease in revenue by packing supplies and equipment to the chalets, but some visitors may ride concession horses to access the chalets.

Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets

This alternative provides the full level of services traditionally offered by the chalets with the exception of flush toilets and running water in the rooms. Tax revenues and out-of-state revenues would continue to be brought to the area. The business opportunity would continue to lend itself to a small "Mom and Pop" organization as well as to other types of organizations. The level of personal services enjoyed by past guests could be maintained.

Funding for the caretaker position, operation and maintenance of sewage and water systems, and stabilization maintenance would need to come from new appropriations or be reallocated from existing park programs.

Construction or rehabilitation funding would need to come from new appropriations or private funding. Some additional NPS jobs would be created for construction and operations. Construction would be completed by either NPS staff or a contractor.

A contract operator would be needed to administer reservations and provide all services to the public, including housekeeping services. A rate structure would need to be developed to cover costs of the operation (perhaps $100.00+ per person, per night, for lodging and meals). Life safety alternatives that call for closure of second-story accommodations for both guests and employees would impact revenue and would need to be offset by increased rates to make the operation economically feasible for a contract operator.

Economic feasibility of the operation would also be affected by other operating factors such as the level of maintenance responsibilities required of the operator and the cost of transporting supplies by stock or helicopter. The terms of any agreement and the rates charged for the service would need to be adjusted to cover operating costs and any additional investment required of the operator. Some of the costs for the operation of the utility system could be charged to the concessioner and passed on through rate increases to the guests. Increased rates could prohibit the average park visitor or families from taking advantage of the service. In addition, visitor expectations of what paying increased rates would provide, could be higher than what the basic, rustic facilities and minimal services provided at the chalets would fulfill (see "Purpose and Need, Issues Not Analyzed, Fees" section).

Horse concessioner revenues would be expected to return to pre-closure numbers.

Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets

This alternative would provide the full level of services traditionally offered by the chalets. The business opportunity would continue to lend itself to a small Mom and Pop organization as well as to other types of organizations. The level of personal services enjoyed by past guests could be maintained. Other impacts would the same as described for alternative 3.

Estimated construction and operational costs are lower for alternative 4 than for alternatives 2 and 3 (see appendix 2). However, there is some question about how long the sewage disposal

79 system proposed for alternative 4 would continue to meet codes as they change over the next ten to twenty years.

VISITOR USE

Affected Environment

Visitor use of the chalet area is both from day hikers and overnight guests. Occupancy of the chalets for the last 10 years is shown in table 5. Estimated use of each chalet is shown in table 6. Overnight visitors to the chalets come primarily from Montana; major points of origin in 1992 were: 295 from Montana, 110 from California, 80 from Washington, 48 from New York, 43 from Minnesota, 38 from Illinois, and 33 from Massachusetts.

80 Table 6: Overnight Use at Backcountry Chalets

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

GRANITE PARK CHALET

June 29

July 977 1,049 1,067 960 994 943 1,045 1 '112 1,071 608 1,010

August 990 1,091 1,050 1,028 973 1,098 1,051 1,101 1 '118 1,168 1,034

September 174 117 70 186 103 93 76 35

TOTAL 2,141 2,257 2,216 1,988 1,967 2,227 2,199 2,306 2,265 1,811 2,044

SPERRY CHALET

June 26

July 1,196 1,243 1,151 1,122 1,160 1,227 1,208 1,220 1,155 658 1,037

August 1,281 1,264 1,232 1,274 1,180 1,249 1,221 1,208 1,215 1,271 1,180

September 196 159 84 210 142 113 78 40 177

TOTAL 2,673 2,666 2,493 2,396 2,340 2,686 2,571 2,541 2,448 1,969 2,394

BOTH CHALETS

TOTAL 4,814 4,923 4,709 4,384 4,307 4,913 4,770 4,847 4,713 3,780 4,438

Source: Annual Concession Reports, Belton Chalet, Inc.

Table 7: Estimated Use at Backcountry Chalets

Granite Park Sperry Per Day Total Per Day Total Overnight 34 2,300 35 2,394 Day Use 120 6,000 25 2,000 Horseback 3 250 11 750 Staff 9 9 9 9 Campers 12 720 12 705

TOTAL 178 9,279 92 5,858

Sources: Annual Financial and Visitor Use Reports, Belton Chalet and Glacier Park Outfitters; Estimate of Day Use, Dr. Stephen McCool; and State of Backcountry Report, Glacier National Park

81 General Impacts

Regardless of the alternative chosen, patterns of trail use elsewhere in the park are not expected to show major variations. Because there are no other shelters, visitors wanting this type of experience. would not be displaced elsewhere. Neither should there be any major variation in the use patterns for backcountry campgrounds. The demand for Granite Park and Sperry campgrounds is extremely high and this is expected to continue regardless of the alternative chosen.

Visitors with sight andjor hearing impairments would benefit from the improvements to fire alarms for all the alternatives using the chalets as overnight accommodations.

For all alternatives the use of helicopters for construction, repair, or waste removal involves the impacts of rotor and engine noise and the visual intrusion on a visitor's experience. Both chalets are within enclaves in the park's proposed wilderness where such intrusions are inappropriate.

The use of stock to transport supplies and visitors causes inherent conflict with some hikers who object to the smell and aesthetics of stock urine and excrement. Trail conditions, especially during wet weather, are exacerbated by stock, especially where maintenance deficiencies exist.

Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status

Under alternative 1, visitors would continue to be able to hike or ride to the chalet area and view the historic structures and use the composting toilet facility there. Overnight facilities, the opportunity for day shelter, a Ia carte food services, and the experiences associated with these amenities would not be available. Potable water would not be furnished. The caretaker would be able to provide some interpretive information, serve as an emergency contact, and continue minor maintenance on the exteriors of the buildings. The second floor balcony would not be available as a viewing platform. There may be gradual deterioration of the buildings with the absence of use.

Overall activity in the area would be diminished since visitors and concession employees would not be staying there for prolonged periods of time. For this alternative, day use could be diminished slightly, especially in inclement weather, but this may be unnoticeable should park and backcountry visitation continue to increase. The security that the chalet provided visitors in bear country would be lost. Daily horse concession rides would still be available from the Many Glacier corral. There are currently no limits on day use in the park except as they relate to concession horse operations, and these would continue.

There would be an improvement in the condition of the pack trail from Packers Roost to Granite Park chalet because the amount of stock traffic would be diminished. Parking problems at the Loop and Logan Pass may be slightly reduced with fewer overnight vehicles, benefitting other park users of this sometimes congested area. There would also be little immediate noise disturbance because there would be no need for major construction and accompanying helicopter flights. The removal of the old water tank and distribution lines could involve some disturbance, but most of the material would be packed out by stock.

As described under general impacts, visitors would be affected by the increased stock trips necessary to pack out compost. Visitors would also be affected by the operation, possibly by helicopter, to remove the old septic tank and its contents.

82 Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter

Total visitor use in this proposal would probably be very close to that of the levels of use prior to 1993, but day use would be related to changes in overall park visitation. There would be some additional sleeping space available, because the size of the staff would be greatly reduced. Visitors would be self-sufficient and required to pack in their own food, cooking utensils, and sleeping gear instead of having meals and bedding provided. This would result in a possible change in the makeup of overnight chalet visitors, as people unwilling or unable to carry their own equipment would not use the facility. Demand for chalet occupancy should be very high due to the popularity of the area, the uniqueness of the experience, and the sense of security the buildings provide in bear country. It is possible that the facility would be fully reserved for the season.

The experience of actually staying in the historic buildings would be preserved for visitors to enjoy, and charges for occupancy would be much lower than if meals and bedding were furnished. This could allow visitors with lower incomes to stay overnight at the chalets. Visitors would be required to pack out garbage, but dish-washing and toilet facilities would be provided. Day users would be able to use the dining room for shelter and could obtain potable water. Toilet facilities would be available to all visitors. Daily horse concession rides would still be available from the Many Glacier corral.

With the proposed construction of new composting toilets in the draw to the north, and the removal of the existing single composting toilet to the southeast, the visual impression of the chalet should improve on the approach trails and the expansive view to the south should be even more open. Power needed for heat in the composting facilities, drinking water- and wastewater-monitoring, and fire-warning devices would be solar or other types of quiet power production, reducing noise effects on visitors/residents.

Construction work in the area projected for 1994-1995 would result in significant visual and audible disturbance from helicopter flights, generators, and other work activities. Projected structural repairs should improve the overall appearance and prolong the life of the buildings. The new sand filter in the lower draw to the north of the chalet would be unnoticed by most visitors.

There would be improvement in the overall condition of the pack trail from Packers Roost to Granite Park chalet because the amount of stock use would be greatly diminished after construction is finished. The occasional high density of visitors at the chalet would be similar to pre-closure levels and the opportunity for solitude in the immediate area would be limited.

The NPS maintenance personnel and the NPS or contract shelter managers would be able to provide some interpretive information and first-aid services, and serve as contacts in case of an emergency.

Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets

Under this alternative, visitors would be able to enjoy virtually the same facilities present before closure except that rather than flush toilets in the old building, new composting toilets would be provided. This would involve additional visual clutter and a little longer walk to the facilities. The single composting unit to the south would be removed, which would improve the view and appearance in that area.

83 There would be a sand filter and bio-solids-drying box constructed in the draw north of the chalet as in alternative 2 and would be unnoticeable to most visitors. Supplementary power sources should be solar based with propane thermogenerator backup, and therefore quiet. Projected structural repairs should improve the overall appearance and prolong the life of the buildings.

The high density of visitors occurring at times at the chalet would be similar to pre-closure levels and the opportunity for solitude in the immediate area would be limited. Trail conditions from the high volume of stock for construction and operation would deteriorate and could stay in that condition as supply and service pack strings would be very active. Daily horse concession rides would still be available from the Many Glacier corral.

Chalet employees would be able to provide some interpretive information, first aid, and serve as contacts in case of emergency.

Projected structural repairs should improve the overall appearance and prolong the life of the buildings.

Disturbance from projected construction in 1994-1995 would be significant because numerous helicopter flights would be needed for materials, especially for the sand filter and bio-solids­ drying box, which would be larger than those required by alternatives 2 and 4. Other disturbance would result from generators and noise associated with construction activity and frequent pack strings supplying the work crew. Portions of the chalet area could be restricted, particularly during flights, but no closures are anticipated.

Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets

Under this alternative, visitors would be able to enjoy virtually the same facilities present before closure. Facilities would be identical to those described under alternative 3 with the addition of flush toilets. There would be additional facilities built for septic treatment, but they would be in the draw north of the chalets and out of sight of most visitors. Costs for lodging would be high to cover additional operating expenses. Day use would be related to changes in overall visitation.

Cumulative Effects

Under the alternatives considered, no increase in cumulative effects to park resources would be anticipated due to the chalet operations specifically. Under past operations, the chalets were used at maximum capacity during the entire summer season. None of the alternatives call for increasing the service capacity of the chalets. Under caretaker status, visitor use and activity would be expected to be less than past levels, thereby reducing the overall cumulative effects of visitor facilities within the park.

However, because there has been a general annual increase in the number of backcountry campers and day hikers, the attraction of the chalets as an interesting place to visit, together with the day hiker food service they would offer under alternatives 3 and 4, could indirectly lead to increased impacts to soil, vegetation, and wildlife in the area over time. Of particular concern in this regard is disturbance to grizzly bear use of the Granite Park area.

84 SPERRY

NATURAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment

Sperry chalet is near tree line at an elevation of 6,640 feet. The chalet buildings are perched near the edge of a rocky ledge that drops approximately 220 feet to an alpine meadow and meandering stream system immediately below. A well-defined bench, perched among steeply sloping rock and vegetated faces, contains the developed area (1 0 acres) of the chalet operations. Sperry chalet occupies a disturbed area of approximately 17 acres. To the north and east of the chalet, a well-developed stand of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce extends up a steep-sloping hillside from the lower stream bottom to the chalet bench. Approximately 140 yards across the bench, behind and to the east of the chalets, steep, rocky, mountainous terrain protrudes immediately upward toward the ridge crest leading to the 7 ,500-foot Lincoln Peak.

The area around Sperry chalet has a variety of vegetation community types including subalpine fir /Engelmann spruce/hellebore forest, hellebore/groundsel/sedge meadow, rushjpenstemon rock outcropping, dry subalpine fir1 mock hazel forest, rocky ledge subalpine fir krummholzjbeargrassjpenstemon associations. Soils within the area range from- bedrock outcrop to shallow pockets (1 to 3 feet deep). These soils are wet along stream courses_ and in depressions. Snowmelt from the immediate site and drainage from areas upslope result in large volumes of water passing through these soils on a seasonal basis (MacConnell 1982 and Dutton 1993).

From the south, a small stream enters the bench upon which the chalet is sitting and flows north across the area to the east of the chalet buildings. The stream passes a patrol cabin approximately 50 yards to the east of the dining hall, and eventually drops down into Sprague Creek approximately 288 yards north of the chalet area. A water intake structure and storage tank for the chalet facilities captures snowmelt from a small spring a short distance up the hillside approximately 150 yards to the southeast of the chalet sleeping quarters. Water is piped under gravity pressure from this location to the chalet buildings. A backup pump unit is on the stream crossing the bench approximately 60 feet downhill from the water intake structure. There are no wetlands in the immediate vicinity of the chalets other than the small amount of riparian habitat along the stream course.

Mountain goats are the most common large mammal within the area of the Sperry chalet. These animals have become somewhat habituated to the visitor activity at the chalets and are often seen wandering among the guests and facilities. Columbian ground squirrels, red-tailed chipmunks, red squirrels, deer mice, snowshoe hares, and mule deer are also common in the area. During the summer, grizzly bears are often attracted to the riparian habitat along Sprague Creek, approximately ~ mile below Sperry chalet.

A four-site campground is approximately 250 yards to the south of the chalet sleeping quarters building and, as with Granite Park, campground hikers frequently visit the chalet and use its - eating and rest room facilities.

General Impacts

General impacts would be the same as described for Granite Park.

85 Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status

A maximum reduction in environmental impacts to the area would be expected under this alternative. As with the Granite Park chalet, no services would be provided and therefore a decrease in overall public use of the area would be expected. Reduced impacts would include decreased disturbance to trails, soil impaction, vegetation damage, and wildlife disturbance within the 10-acre area currently impacted by the chalet structures, support facilities, ranger cabin, campground, and trails. Camping within the nearby campground, backcountry hiker visitation, and day use would still be expected to occur and result in continuation of over 3,000 feet of hiking and social trails that currently exist within the area. The present trail crew cabin would be maintained near the small creek at the back side of the bench to the northeast of the dining room building. Soil compaction and crushing of vegetation by foot travel, and wood cutting around the building and food preparation impacts would all continue.

Removal of the existing water supply and wastewater treatment facilities would result in some temporary increased impacts to soil, vegetation, and possibly wildlife within the area. Structural repairs to the chalet buildings would be minimal and construction impacts in terms of stock pack trips, helicopter deliveries, and number of workers would be least among the alternatives considered. A work crew of four persons over a 2-month period would be required. These workers would have some impact in terms of increased foot traffic and soil compaction, increased erosion within the area, loss of moisture to plants, and crushed vegetation. It is estimated that two helicopter flights and two stock pack trips per week would be required during this time. This would result in noise impacts to backcountry visitors; minor, temporary disturbance of any ungulates, bears, or other mammals within the area; some trail compaction; and increased erosion.

Geology/Soils. The existing water supply system including water intake and storage tank, backup pump system and pipelines originally caused approximately 2,500 square feet of surface disturbance (surface rock and surface soils). The existing wastewater system is estimated to have impacted 3,850 cubic feet of bedrock and associated pockets of surface soil when installed. These original impacts occurred in 1984 and have been mitigated somewhat by natural vegetative growth and surface erosional process. The existing chalet buildings, rest room/laundry building, pit toilet, patrol cabin and horse-hitching rail have impacted approximately 48,000 square feet of soil and vegetation within the area. These impacts include loss of vegetation, compaction of soils, decreased permeability, lower soil moisture, and increased erosion. Under this alternative, the severity of these impacts would be expected to decrease with an overall decrease in visitor use of the area.

Removal of the water delivery, pit-toilet, and wastewater facilities would not be expected to result in additional impacts to bedrock, but renewed temporary surface impacts to rock and soil in accomplishing the removals is expected. Soil, surface rock, and vegetation disturbance over an area equal to 5,200 square feet would be expected during removal of these facilities. Impacts would include accelerated erosion, at least temporarily, until rehabilitation and revegetation is completed. Vegetative planting would be used to speed the recovery process.

The installation of a single pair of composting toilets (144-square-foot) would be expected to result in impact only to already disturbed soil and exposed rock surfaces.

As with the Granite Park chalet, additional long-term reductions in soil and surface rock impacts could be expected with a reduction in the frequency and overall number of supply pack trips that

86 has been required to support the chalet operation. Occasional pack trips would be needed to supply the caretaker and possibly to haul out composted sewage and excess urine at the end of the season. With the traditional service operation in the past, eighteen to twenty pack trips a season were made to the chalets. Under this alternative, only three to four pack trips a season would be anticipated. There may be a temporary increase in stock pack trips to supply materials and food to a crew of four workers during implementation of this alternative. An estimated two trips per week would be needed over a 2-month period.

Stock pack trips to Sperry chalet result in impacts to over 6 miles of trail between the Lake McDonald Lodge corrals and the chalet. The primary impacts are soil compaction, loss of vegetation through an increase in trail width of 2 to 3 feet beyond that of just foot travel, increased erosion during and following rainfall events, and minor alterations in soil nutrient concentrations because of horse fecal droppings. Under this alternative, only occasional pack trips would be needed for the caretaker and possibly to haul out composted sewage and excess urine at the end of the season.

Vegetation. Removal of the existing water delivery and wastewater treatment facilities would eliminate an estimated 3,600 square feet of vegetation within exposed rocky surface habitat. An additional 7,200 square feet of vegetation could be temporarily impacted during removal activities. These impacts would include soil disturbance and compaction, vegetation crushing, and possibly increased soil erosion until regrowth occurred. This would be mitigated by planting and site rehabilitation following the removal. Revegetation efforts are not expected to reintroduce the full complement of species that may currently exist on impacted sites but have been found to be an effective method to reestablish 50 percent or more of the species of the original community composition. Complete revegetation would take several years, but some species could be established within the first year.

Construction of the composting toilets would result in the permanent loss of 144 square feet of vegetation, however, much of the area where the toilet is to be located is largely rock outcroppings with limited growth of rushes, grasses, and herbs. Precipitation that falls on these buildings and the existing chalet structures would not be absorbed into the ground and would be diverted. The extremely shallow soil and rocky nature of the site however, make the expected impacts of such diversion minimal. Diversion would not be expected to alter the natural composition of vegetation in the surrounding area.

Because the discharge of all wastewater would be eliminated under this alternative, the practice of piping sewage effluent into a poorly functioning drain area along the cliff face below the chalet would be stopped. This would eliminate the existing impacts of increased nutrient loading into soils and the associated alteration of vegetation communities (MacConnell 1982). Vegetation growth that has been altered over approximately Ys acre, where the current leachate is distributed, would be expected to slowly return to a more natural state. The dumping of sewage bio-solids over the cliff face at the end of each season would be eliminated.

Wildlife. As at Granite Park, existing activities within the chalet area are impacting wildlife by altering vegetation and providing food and other attractants. This alternative would be expected to reduce the long-term level of wildlife attractants and result in less disturbance because fewer visitors would be in the area. The decrease in number of visitors and food preparation at the chalet would also be expected to lead to a reduction in the number of habituated mountain goats attracted to the area.

87 Vegetation alterations associated with tank and line removals and building repairs and construction would result in temporary displacement and destruction of resident invertebrates and small vertebrates over a less than 1.5-acre area.

With the implementation of this alternative, some additional short-term wildlife impacts would be expected. Because no sewage system, bio-solids-drying bed, or sand filter system would be available, and the existing septic tank would be removed, existing sewage bio-solids and effluent within the septic tank would have to be pumped into containers and flown out by helicopter. An estimated four helicopter trips would be required to accomplish the removal. In addition, an estimated two helicopter flights per week, over a 3-month period, could be needed to carry necessary equipment and supplies to the chalet to enable repairs, construction of the composting toilets, and removal of the pit toilet and water delivery and wastewater treatment facilities. Each helicopter flight would be expected to disturb park visitors and temporarily disturb wildlife within the area, including the golden eagles that are known to nest in the rocky cliff habitat to the east of the chalet.

Common bird species that are likely to be temporarily displaced and impacted by construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the chalet include ravens, hermit thrushes, golden-crowned kinglets, pine siskins, fox sparrows, oregon juncos, blue grouse and possibly ptarmigan. Long­ term impacts to these species should be reduced with decreased visitor use of the area.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Grizzly bears are the only threatened or endangered species believed to regularly use habitat within the vicinity of the chalet. However, they are most frequently seen using the riparian and wetland vegetation areas along Sprague Creek approximately 1h mile below the chalets. Human activity in the vicinity of the chalet has probably impacted grizzly bear use of the area, but this has not been well documented. Bears have been surprised by hikers along trails, and appear to avoid the areas of highest human use at the chalets and the nearby campground. This alternative would result in a reduction of these impacts.

Water Quality. Surface water and groundwater within the area of Sperry chalet is known to be impacted by the wastewater treatment system (MacConnell 1982 and Hauer 1988). These impacts consist of septic leachates entering the surface water systems and into the wetlands at the bottom of the cliff to the west of chalet. Significant quantities of undecomposed human waste can be found on the surface of the ground along the cliff face below the septic tank. Runoff water is known to occasionally contaminate Sprague Creek downstream from the system (MacConnell 1982 and Hauer 1988). This contamination results in increased plankton productivity, the presence of fecal coliform bacteria, and changes within the benthic plant and animal communities within the streambed.

Decreases in visitation to the area expected with this alternative and the elimination of all wastewater discharge would eliminate the current water-quality impacts.

Air Quality. The chalets are in a wilderness setting of the park under a class 1 airshed designation. The past operation of the chalets has undoubtedly resulted in some intermittent and periodic minor deterioration of air quality from fireplace and kitchen operations. Visitors smoking within the vicinity of the chalet have also contributed in a minor way to the decline of the pristine air quality within the area. The extent of these impacts has not been measured. This alternative would result in some decrease to the past impacts because chalet fire and kitchen operations would be eliminated and visitation would be less. The caretaker quarters and trail

88 cabin would continue to have some cooking activity and woodstoves for heat, so all impacts to air quality would not be eliminated.

Construction Impacts:

Previously disturbed areas ...... 5,444 square feet Undisturbed new area ...... 0 square feet

Total area of construction impact ...... 5,444 square feet Total area to be rehabilitated ...... 5,200 square feet Total area without rehabilitation (facilities) ...... 244 square feet

Cubic feet of bedrock and soil to move ...... 0 cubic feet

Other Impacts:

Nutrient discharge ...... Eliminated Stock pack trips ...... 3 to 4 per year Area use (expected) ...... Decrease

Construction: People ...... 4 workers Time ...... 2 months Helicopter flights ...... 2 flights per week Stock trips ...... 2 per week Area temporarily impacted ...... 1 acre

Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter

As with the Granite Park chalet, public use of this chalet would be expected to be at or near full capacity during the entire summer season under this alternative. No flush toilets, food, or hotel services would be provided, but water supply and wastewater treatment for a public kitchen would be required. Therefore, most, if not all, of the environmental impacts associated with alternatives 3, and 4 would also occur under this alternative at the Sperry chalet.

This alternative calls for removing the existing pit toilet, removal of all flush toilets and all interior hotel room sinks, and the installation of com posting toilets (about 360 square-foot building). The composting toilets would be placed next to the existing rest room/laundry building and would result in some additional disturbance to soil and some low-growing natural vegetation on the site. The location of the toilets however, is well within the overall existing development zone of the chalet and would not enlarge the existing 10-acre disturbed area footprint.

Wastewater from the shelter operator's quarters and wastewater from the shelter kitchen would be collected and piped north downhill to a new wastewater treatment facility. This facility would result in an expansion of the existing disturbed area footprint.

Geology/Soils. All of the existing impacts to the soil and rock formations described under alternative 1 due to past chalet operations would be expected to continue with this alternative.

89 Construction of composting toilets would result in direct impacts to a 360-square-foot area of previously disturbed soil and vegetation within the vicinity of the existing laundry;rest room building northeast of the chalet sleeping quarters (see Sperry Alternative 2 map). This site is composed almost entirely of exposed bedrock formation. However, installing sewer lines would require blasting and removal of approximately 1,500 cubic feet of bedrock and soil material. This would result in permanent disturbance to approximately 1,500 square feet of surface area across an area consisting of only moderately disturbed spruce/subalpine fir habitat. Approximately 25 percent of this route would be through already heavily disturbed habitat of exposed rock and compacted soils.

Removal of the existing pit toilet facilities and rehabilitation of that area would result in the elimination of approximately 1,600 square feet of surface impacts at the current toilet site. Removal of the existing septic tank and delivery line would not be expected to result in additional impacts to bedrock, but renewed surface impacts to rock and soil in accomplishing the removals is expected. Soil, surface rock, and vegetation disturbance over an area equal to 2,500 square feet is expected during removal of the septic tank. Impacts would include accelerated erosion, at least temporarily, until rehabilitation and revegetation is completed. Vegetative planting would be used to speed the recovery process.

Installation of a new septic tank, a sand filter system, dosing siphon, drain field, and bio-solids­ drying bed at a location to the north of the dining room building would require blasting and removal of approximately 12, 100 cubic feet of bedrock and permanent disturbance to approximately 2,500 square feet of surface area.

One option under this alternative would install a sprinkler system within the chalet buildings, and require installation of an additional 10,000-gallon water tank in the vicinity of the existing water intake structure. It is estimated that the installation of this tank would cause permanent disturbance to approximately 400 square feet of surface area. These impacts would be soil removal, rock blasting, and compaction of surface materials.

To ensure adequate water supply and pressure to the operate the sprinkler system, a water supply line between the storage tanks and chalet buildings would be required. This would result in renewed disturbance of approximately 230 yards and an estimated 6,250 cubic feet of bedrock and topsoil would have to be removed. Approximately 3,500 cubic feet of surface area would be disturbed through spruce/subalpine fir, and exposed bedrock habitat.

This alternative calls for the installation of a new backup system pump to be installed for direct removal of water from the stream that flows across the bench when water at the snowmelt spring dries up late in the year. If this new pump were placed where the existing pump is, additional impacts to the soil and vegetation at that site would be negligible. Temporary soil compaction and vegetation disturbance within an immediate area of perhaps 400 square feet would occur.

Construction activities associated with this alternative would involve an estimated 8 to 9 people, working 10-day shifts, over two summer seasons. During installation of the new wastewater treatment system, water delivery system improvements, and removal of the existing septic tank and pit toilet, a considerable amount of temporary soil and vegetation disturbance would be expected to occur over an area totaling approximately 1 acre. Impacts would include soil compaction, vegetation crushing, accelerated erosion, decreased water-retention capacities, and changes in nutrient concentrations and soil chemistry within exposed pockets of soil over the rock outcroppings. Because the chalet would be open to public use, numerous structural repairs

90 and safety improvements would have to be made to the existing buildings. None of the needed repairs or fire-safety improvements other than the sprinkler system are expected to have long­ term environmental impacts, but they would add to the overall impacts of construction in terms of increased foot traffic and soil compaction, increased erosion within the area, loss of moisture to plants, and crushed vegetation.

As in alternative 1, the lack of meal and hotel services in this alternative would be expected to result in a long-term reduction in the frequency and overall number of stock pack trips required to supply the chalets, their staff, and guests after implementation of shelter status. With the traditional service operation in the past, eighteen to twenty stock trips a season were made to the chalets for supply purposes. Under this alternative, only three to four pack trips a season would be needed for the shelter manager, and it is anticipated that dried septic tank bio-solids and com posted sewage would be hauled out every 3 to 5 years. The impact of stock pack trips are as discussed under alternative 1.

There may be a temporary increase in stock pack trips to supply materials and food to a crew of 8 to 9 workers during implementation of this alternative. An estimated four pack trips per week would be needed to supply the work activity during two summer seasons.

This alternative calls for structural changes to the chalet and other fire-safety improvements or the elimination of all second-story use by the public. Should closure of the second story be the choice, the number of visitors staying at the chalet would be reduced. This would in turn reduce environmental impacts associated with activities and facilities required to service guests, including the number of horse pack supply trips that would be needed and the overall size and capacity of wastewater treatment facilities that would be needed, as well as the extent of direct impacts of visitor activities on the resources. The significance of these reductions in relation to the overall impacts, would be minimal.

Vegetation. Existing vegetation impacts of past chalet operations described in alternative 1 are expected to continue under this alternative.

Construction of the new wastewater treatment system, composting toilets and associated pipelines would result in the elimination of approximately 4,400 square feet of vegetation. Roughly 60 to 70 percent of this area would be within a previously undisturbed, sparse-to­ medium-dense spruce/subalpine forest habitat, with an understory dominated by woodrush, huckleberry, bear grass, gooseberry, elderberry and a variety of other herbaceous and woody species. Impacts would result in the permanent loss of ground vegetation and the removal of over one hundred evergreen trees, largely Englemann spruce and subalpine fir. Ground surveys have revealed no rare or endangered plant species growing in or near the areas that would be disturbed.

Areas disturbed during the construction of the new facilities would be rehabilitated and the new septic tank and sand filter and drain field system could be placed entirely below ground level and the overlying surface revegetated (approximately 2,300 square feet). The pipeline routes would also be revegetated (1 ,500 square feet). However, revegetation efforts are not expected to reintroduce the full complement of species that may currently exist on impacted sites and conifer growth would require 50 to 100 years to be reestablished. Revegetation plantings would be expected to reestablish 50 percent or more of the low-growing ground and shrub species of the original community composition within a 2 to 3-year period (Kurth, personal communication).

91 The installation of the new water delivery pipeline would result in elimination of all existing vegetation over a previously undisturbed area of approximately 3,500 square feet. Upon completion of installation, the disturbed areas along the route would be treated and revegetated to reduce long-term resource impacts, but the conifer tree species along this route would be lost.

The current practice of piping sewage effluent into a poorly functioning drain area along the cliff face below the chalet would be stopped. This would eliminate the impacts of increased nutrient loading into soils and the associated alteration of vegetation communities in impacted areas. Vegetation growth that has been altered over approximately Va acre, where the current leachate is distributed, would be expected to slowly return to a more natural state (MacConnell 1982). The dumping of sewage bio-solids over the cliff face at the end of each season would be stopped.

Precipitation that falls on the new com posting toilets, and wastewater treatment facilities, as well as on the existing chalet structures would not be absorbed into the ground and would be diverted. The extremely shallow soil and rocky nature of the site however, make the expected impacts of such diversion minimal. Diversion would not be expected to alter the natural composition of vegetation in the surrounding area.

Construction workers making building repairs and fire-safety improvements are expected to cause some temporary vegetation disturbances in the immediate vicinity of the chalets and facilities being constructed. These impacts would be due to soil compaction, trampling, root exposure, and erosion. The total area receiving temporary impacts from these activities is not expected to exceed 2.0 acres.

Wildlife. Existing. activities within the chalet area are impacting wildlife by altering vegetation and providing food and other attractants. Under this alternative these impacts would be expected to continue because it is unlikely there would be any reduction in overall visitor activity.

Soil and vegetation alterations associated with building repairs, safety improvements, and the construction of the water delivery and wastewater treatment facilities would result in temporary displacement and destruction of resident invertebrates and small vertebrates over an area of up to 2 acres. The degree to which this area could be rehabilitated following construction would determine the extent and duration of these impacts.

Long-term environmental impacts could be expected to decrease over those currently existing within the wastewater treatment area. The present, poorly functioning system would be eliminated, thereby eliminating any attractant to bears and stimulus for wildlife to dig within the area. The exposed bio-solids-drying areas would be eliminated and rehabilitated.

With the implementation of this alternative, some additional short-term wildlife impacts would be expected. These impacts include disturbance from blasting into the rock substrate to facilitate the installation of wastewater treatment tanks and noise disturbance from helicopter supply flights. An estimated 10 hours (1 hour per day) of helicopter flights would be needed to haul filter sand, non-packable equipment, and construction supplies into this wilderness backcountry area. Although the specific impacts of helicopter flights have not been documented, each flight would be expected to disturb park visitors and temporarily disturb any large wildlife species within the area. Construction activity noise, the number of people, and equipment operations within the area would also be expected to disturb wildlife travel through the area and use of adjacent habitats. The extent to which these activities would impact wildlife has not been

92 documented. However, the extent of total available habitat impacted during the construction period would constitute less than 0.0001 percent of the alpine habitat available to these species.

Common bird species that would likely be temporarily displaced and impacted by construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the chalet include ravens, hermit thrushes, golden-crowned kinglets, pine siskins, fox sparrows, oregon juncos, blue grouse and possibly ptarmigan. Long­ term impacts should be reduced to these species with decreased visitor use of the area.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Grizzly bears are the only threatened or endangered species believed to regularly use habitat within the vicinity of the chalet. However, they are most frequently seen using the riparian and wetland vegetation areas along Sprague Creek approximately 1-2 mile below the chalets. Current activity in the vicinity of the chalet has probably impacted grizzly bear use of the area, but this has not been well documented. Bears have been surprised by hikers along trails, and appear to avoid the areas of highest human use at the chalets and the nearby campground. This alternative would eliminate any attraction the existing sewage system has on grizzly bears, through the elimination of untreated discharge and exposed bio-solids drying. Impacts of human activity in the area are not expected to decrease and may increase with increased day use over time.

Water Quality. Currently, surface water and groundwater within the area of the chalet is known to be impacted by the wastewater treatment system (MacConnell 1982 and Hauer 1988). These impacts are described under alternative 1. This alternative would greatly reduce the current water-quality impacts through the elimination of untreated effluent discharge. Nutrient enrichment of groundwater and surface water would be eliminated along the cliff face and from the stream and wetland areas downstream. Nutrient concentrations in the treated effluent releases would be greatly reduced and would meet state and federally authorized discharge standards. Routine monitoring of the wastewater treatment system would insure that the system is functioning properly and that discharge standards are met.

Repair and relining of the water intake pond is expected to cause temporary impacts to the spring and downstream flow into the stream in terms of increased sedimentation and turbidity, adjacent surface erosion, resuspended solids, increased nutrient concentrations, and disturbance of benthic organisms and possibly plants. Secondary effects may include changes in plankton production associated with increased nutrient availability. These impacts would be minimal in comparison with normal periodic effects of rainfall and spring runoff events.

Air Quality. The chalets are in a wilderness setting of the park under a class 1 airshed designation. The past operation of the chalets has undoubtedly resulted in some intermittent and periodic minor deterioration of air quality from fireplace and kitchen operations. Visitors smoking within the vicinity of the chalet have also contributed in a minor way to the decline of the pristine air quality within the area. The extent of these impacts has not been measured. This alternative would not be expected to result in any decrease to the past impacts, because chalet fire and kitchen operations would continue and visitation is not expected to decline. In addition, the caretaker quarters would have some cooking activity and a woodstove for heat, which would add impacts to local air quality.

93 Construction Impacts:

Previously disturbed areas ...... 6,100 square feet Undisturbed new area ...... 3,500 square feet

Total area of construction impact . • . . • . . . . . • • • • . • • • • • • • • 9,600 square feet Total area to be rehabilitated • • • • . • . . . . . • • . . • • • . • • . • • . • 8,600 square feet Total area without rehabilitation (facilities) . . . . • • . • • • • • • • • • 1 ,000 square feet

Cubic feet of bedrock and soil to move ...... 19,900 cubic feet

Other Impacts:

Nutrient discharge ...... 13.6 to 34.0 grams per day Stock pack trips ...... 3 to 4 per year Area use ...... No decrease

Construction: People ...... 8 to 9 workers Time ...... 2 seasons Helicopter flights ...... 10 days - 1 hour per day Stock trips ...... 4 per week Area temporarily impacted ...... 1 acre

Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets

With the exception of flush toilets, essentially all of the services that were traditionally available would be provided under this alternative. Sewage treatment system impacts and impacts to fire safety improvements would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Geology/Soils. Long-term impacts to the soil would be similar to those discussed under alternative 2, with the addition of more stock pack supply trips, which would result in increased trail erosion and vegetation impacts over 6 miles of trail between the McDonald Lodge horse corrals and the chalet. The primary impacts would be soil compaction, loss of vegetation through an increase in trail width of 2 to 3 feet beyond that of just foot travel, increased erosion during and following rainfall events, and minor alterations in soil nutrient concentrations because of horse fecal droppings. Construction activities associated with this alternative would be similar to those described for alternative 2, and expected impact would not differ significantly from those described under that alternative.

Vegetation. Long-term impacts to vegetation would be similar to those discussed under alternative 2 with the addition of impacts already described for increased stock pack supply trips. The impact of construction workers making building repairs and fire-safety improvements are not expected to differ from those described under alternative 2.

Wildlife. Long-term impacts to vegetation would be similar to those discussed under alternative 2. Short-term impacts associated with construction activities and implementation of this alternative would not be expected to differ significantly from those described under alternative 2.

94 Threatened and Endangered Species. Grizzly bears are the only threatened or endangered species believed to regularly use habitat within the vicinity of the chalet. Impacts to grizzly bears under this alternative would not be ·expected to differ from those described under alternative 2.

Water Quality. Long-term impacts to water quality would be similar to those discussed under alternative 2. The same level of wastewater treatment facilities called for and discussed under alternative 2 would be required. Water delivery system improvements called for would be the same as those indicated under alternatives 2 and 4 and resource impacts and benefits would not differ from those discussed under those alternatives. Repair and relining of the water intake pond would be expected to cause temporary impacts to the spring and downstream flow into the stream crossing the area, as discussed under alternative 2.

Air Quality. Long-term impacts to air quality would be similar to those discussed under alternative 2.

Construction Impacts:

Previously disturbed areas ...... 6,1 00 square feet Undisturbed new area ...... 3,500 square feet

Total area of construction impact • • • . . . . • . • . . . . • . . . • . . • • 9,600 square feet Total area to be rehabilitated . . • . . . . • • • . . . • • • • . . • . . • • . . 8,600 square feet Total area without rehabilitation . • • • . . . • • • . . • . . . • . • • . . . • 1 ,000 square feet

Cubic feet of bedrock and soil to move ...... 19,900 cubic feet

Other Impacts:

Nutrient discharge ...... 13.6 to 34.0 grams per day Stock pack trips ...... 18-20 per year Area use ...... No decrease

Construction: People ...... 8 to 9 workers Time ...... 2 seasons Helicopter flights ...... 10 days - 1 hour per day Stock trips ...... 4 per week Area temporarily impacted ...... 1 acre

Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets

Of the alternatives considered, this one would be expected to result in the highest level of environmental impacts. Sewage treatment facilities would permanently impact some previously undisturbed coniferous forest habitat (see Sperry alternative 4 map). However, past discharge of untreated sewage effluent would be eliminated. The installation of low-volume flush toilets would reduce water usage and wastewater volume. Composting toilets would be installed for early spring and late fall season use when the chalets are closed. Installation of a fire-safety sprinkler system will require construction of additional water storage tank capacity and new distribution lines to the chalets. All soil and vegetation disturbance associated with

95 improvements to the water supply system would be along previously disturbed areas and routes, and would be revegetated upon completion of the installation.

Geology/Soils. All of the existing impacts to the soil and rock formations described under alternative 1 due to past chalet operations would be expected to continue with this alternative.

Because only a two-unit composting toilet would be constructed under this alternative, direct impacts to only 144 square feet of ground within the vicinity of the existing laundry;rest room building northeast of the chalet sleeping quarters would occur with installation. This site is composed almost entirely of exposed bedrock formation.

Removal of the existing pit toilet and septic tank and rehabilitation of those areas would result in the same temporary impacts and long-range improvements as discussed under alternative 2. Temporary disturbance to soil and vegetation in terms of compaction and crushing would be expected to occur over an area of approximately 4,100 square feet. Following revegetation and rehabilitation of these sites, existing impacts over an area of approximately 250 square feet would be eliminated.

Installation of a septic tank, sand filter system, dosing siphon, chlorination unit, drain field, and bio-solids-drying bed at a location to the north of the dining room building would require blasting. and removal of approximately 15,300 cubic feet of bedrock and permanent disturbance to approximately 3,100 square feet of surface area. This disturbance would be within a previously undisturbed spruce/subalpine forest habitat and would result in the complete destruction of over 150 evergreen trees. Installing a sewer line from the rest room building to the new treatment system would require blasting and removal of approximately 3,000 square feet of bedrock and soil material. Environmental impacts of installing this line would be the same as those discussed under alternative 2. This impact could be partially mitigated provided the distribution pipes, septic tank, sand filter, and dosing siphon could be placed completely underground and the surface area over these facilities {approximately 5,800 square feet) revegetated.

The use of flush instead of composting toilets would increase the area disturbed by the sand filter, drain field and sewer lines by about 2,100 square feet and decrease the surface area disturbance for new toilet buildings and sewer lines by about 216 square feet.

Installation of a sprinkler system would have the same effects as described for alternative 2.

The installation of a new backup system pump for direct removal of water from the stream that flows across the bench would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Construction activities associated with this alternative would be similar to those described for alternative 2, and expected impacts would not differ significantly from those described under that alternative.

Because full chalet and meal services would be provided under this alternative, no reduction from past levels could be expected in the frequency and overall number of stock pack trips required to supply the chalets, their staff, and guests. With the traditional service operation in the past,­ eighteen to twenty stock trips a season were made to the chalets for supply purposes. Stock pack trips result in impacts to over 6 miles of trail between the McDonald Lodge horse corrals and the chalet as described under alternative 3. Under this alternative two or more pack trips would be needed to haul out dried sewage bio-solids each year.

96 This alternative also calls for structural changes to the chalet and other fire-safety improvements, or the elimination of all second-story use by the public. Should closure of the second story be the choice, environmental impacts would be reduced in a manner similar to the reductions described under alternative 2.

Vegetation. Existing vegetation impacts of the past chalet operation described in alternative 1 are expected to continue under this alternative.

Construction of the new wastewater treatment system, composting toilets, and associated pipelines would result in the destruction of all vegetation growing over an area of approximately 6,200 square feet. The vegetative community impacted, nature of the impacts, and mitigating measures that would be taken are the same as those described under alternative 2.

The installation of a new water delivery pipeline would result in the same impacts as described under alternative 2.

As in alternatives 2 and 3, the current piping of sewage effluent into a poorly functioning drain area along the cliff face below the chalet would be eliminated with this alternative and the benefits achieved would be the same as those described under alternative 2.

Some slight changes in the effects of precipitation on soil and vegetated surfaces would be expected under this alternative, but they would be fewer than those expected under alternative 2, because less surface area would be covered by buildings under this alternative. These impacts involve lost absorption and diversion of water falling on the structure roofs. The extremely shallow soil and rocky nature of the site, however, make the expected impacts of such diversion minimal. These changes would not be expected to alter the natural composition of vegetation within the surrounding area.

The impact of construction workers making building repairs and fire-safety improvements are not expected to differ from those described under alternative 2.

Wildlife. Existing activities within the chalet area are impacting wildlife by altering vegetation and providing food and other attractants. Under this alternative these impacts would be expected to continue because it is unlikely there would be any reduction in overall visitor activity.

Short-term impacts associated with construction activities and implementation of this alternative would not be expected to differ significantly from those described under alternative 2.

As with alternative 2, long-term environmental impacts could be expected to decrease over those currently existing within the wastewater treatment area. The present, poorly functioning sewage system would be eliminated, thereby eliminating any attractant to bears and stimulus for wildlife to dig within the area. The exposed bio-solids-drying practices would be eliminated. However, any long-term impacts to wil~life associated with stock pack trips (disturbance, attraction to stock feces, etc.) would be expected to be greatest under this alternative, because of the expected need for additional stock supply trips.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Grizzly bears are the only threatened or endangered species believed to regularly use habitat within the vicinity of the chalet. Impacts to grizzly bears under this alternative would not be expected to differ from those described under alternative 2.

97 Water Quality. Currently, surface water and groundwater within the area of the chalet is known to be impacted by the wastewater treatment system (MacConnell1982 and Hauer 1988). These impacts are described under alternative 1. This alternative would greatly reduce the current water-quality impacts, because nutrient enrichment of groundwater and surface water would be eliminated along the cliff face and from the stream and wetland areas downstream. However, this alternative could result in slightly greater impacts than expected under alternatives 2 and 3.

Repair and relining of the water intake pond would be expected to cause temporary impacts to the spring and downstream flow into the stream crossing the area, as discussed under alternative 2. The extent of these impacts would be similar under this alternative.

Air Quality. Impacts to air quality in the vicinity of the chalet under this alternative is not expected to differ from those describe under alternative 2.

Construction Impacts:

Previously disturbed areas ...... 6,100 square feet Undisturbed new area ...... 5,400 square feet

Total area of construction impact • . . • • . . . . . • • • • • • . . • • • • 11,500 square feet Total area to be rehabilitated . • . . • • . . . . • . • . • • • • ...... • 1 0,600 square feet Total area without rehabilitation ....•••...••....•••••••••• 900 square feet

Cubic feet of bedrock and soil to move ...... 25,200 cubic feet

Other Impacts:

Nutrient discharge ...... 45.4 to 68.1 grams per day Stock pack trips ...... 18~20 per year Area use ...... No decrease

Construction: People ...... 8 to 9 workers Time ...... 2 seasons Helicopter flights ...... 10 days - 1 hour per day Stock trips ...... 4 per week Area temporarily impacted ...... 1 acre

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Affected Environment

As previously described, Sperry chalet was constructed in 1914 by the Great Northern Railway. The chalets provided visitors with a backcountry experience for over 75 years with brief interruptions during wartimes. The service included hearty meals and lodging in a rustic mountain atmosphere. The Great Northern Railway sold the chalets to the NPS in 1954 for $1. From that time, they were operated under a concession contract on a seasonal basis.

98 In addition to being listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Sperry chalet is a national historic landmark. As at Granite Park, the buildings are significant for their architecture (materials, rusticity, simplicity, and a "chalet appearance" reminiscent of high mountain European architecture) and for their role in the development of Glacier National Park by providing lodging and food in an isolated area of the park. The buildings are a livingjworking museum of the early park era (NPS 1975b). The historic district comprises the dormitory and kitchen/dining room, which were constructed of lumber, native stone, and logs.

A thorough intensive surface survey of the area to be affected by proposed development of the Sperry chalet water system was conducted in 1984 (NPS 1984b). That report states "A much larger area than will be disturbed during construction .. ." was surveyed. No archeological resources were found in that survey. Because filtration beds proposed under some alternative were outside the area previously surveyed, a park cultural resource specialist intensively surveyed that area on October 5, 1993. No archeological resources were found in that survey. The combination of both surveys covers all surface area that might be disturbed by any of the alternatives considered. No known archeological resources would be affected.

Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status

Impacts would be the same as described for alternative 1 at Granite Park.

Table 8, Historic Resource Undertakings, Sperry Chalet, describes the effect these actions would have on historic resources. Consultation with the Montana SHPO and ACHP required under §106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is under way.

Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter

Although Sperry would not be made accessible for persons with disabilities, impacts would be the same as described for Granite Park with the following additional effects. There is the potential that only the first floor of the chalet would be used for overnight guests. If so, the sec;:ond floor would be physically sealed to prevent entry. This may result in increased animal activity on the second floor and possible illegal entry by visitors. Deterioration may increase due to fewer observation opportunities by the on-site staff. The space may become a storage area, increasing the potential for adverse effects.

Should the second_ floor of the chalet be used to provide sleeping accommodations for the public, health/life safety modifications would be needed that could have adverse impacts.

Two means of egress would be required from the second-floor area. There are two possibilities for providing this egress:

1. Construct two exterior stairs at both ends of the building. This would require interior modification to permit unimpeded access to the exits. The wall between the exit corridor and room would require a 1-hour separation. This alternative would adversely impact the historic characteristics of the building.

2. Construct an interior corridor connecting both stairs. Provide for a 2-hour separation between both sections of the building. A 1-hour separation would be required between room and exit corridor.

99 There are two alternatives for providing fire protection. Both would significantly impact the interior spaces. However, the fire-suppression alternative provides the least overall impact. A hardwired fire-detection and alarm system_ with pull boxes would be required, as would self closing doors.

1. Not sprinkled. This would require a 1-hour separation of all spaces within the structure and enclosing the stairs. This alternative would totally destroy the interior character-defining features.

2. Fire-suppression system. A fully activated, integrated fire-suppression and detection system would provide the maximum protection to occupants and building, with minimal impact on the interior. The system would be interconnected to the alarm system. A sprinkled structure would not require 1-hour separation of the rooms.

Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets

Under this alternative, food and linen service would continue to be provided to the public,, thus preserving the traditional qualities of use considered significant in the determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register.

Impacts of this alternative would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets

Under this alternative, food and linen service would continue to be provided to the public, thus preserving the traditional qualities of use considered significant in the determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register.

Impacts of this alternative would be the same as described for alternative 2.

Table 8: Historic Resource Undertakings, Sperry Chalet

Impact Effect Remarks Pages Alternative 1 : Caretaker Status Closure AE Buildings not used, loss of Alternatives structure by not using. Loss of Considered - cultural values Sperry; Cultural Resource Impacts - Sperry Rodents AE Waste and disease Cultural Resource Impacts - Sperry Landscape NAE Loss of historic landscape, Meet Cultural Resource Sec. of the Interior Standards for Impacts- Sperry Rehab. Fire detection and NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource alarm system Standards for Rehab. Life. Safety Impacts- Sperry

100 Impact Effect Remarks Pages Alternative 2: Shelter Reduced services NAE Less staff to respond to Cultural Resource maintenance issues in a timely Impacts - Sperry manner Restoration NAE Structures restored to historic Stabilization/ appearance Structural Repairs, Cultural Resource Impacts- Sperry Restore guardrail NAE Restoration, Life Safety Stabilization/ Structural Repairs, Cultural Resource Impacts - Sperry New composting NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Natural Resource toilets Standards for Rehab. Impacts - Sperry, Cultural Resource Impacts- Sperry Fire detection and NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource alarm system Standards for Rehab., Life Safety Impacts- Sperry Removal of interior NAE HABS documentation and Natural Resource sinks archiving example Impacts - Sperry, Cultural Resource Impacts - Sperry Construct exterior AE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource stair Standards for Rehab. Impacts - Sperry Construct interior NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Cultural Resource stair Standards for Rehab. Impacts- Sperry No sprinkler system AE Cannot be done without Cultural Resource destroying the interior of the Impacts - Sperry structure Install sprinkler NAE Meet Sec. of the Interior Natural Resource system Standards for Rehab., Life Safety Impacts - Sperry, Cultural Resource Impacts- Sperry Alternatives 3 and 4 have the same Impacts as alternative 2.

Notes:

NE - No Effect NAE - No Adverse Effect AE - Adverse Effect

101 Impacts must meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and NPS-28 Cultural Resources Management Guideline in order to qualify for No Adverse Effect.

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status

Impacts would be the same as described for Granite Park.

Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter

Impacts would be the same as described for Granite Park.

Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets

Impacts would be the same as described for Granite Park.

Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets

Impacts would be the same as described for Granite Park.

VISITOR USE

General Impacts

General impacts would be the same as those described for the Granite Park chalet.

Impacts of Alternative 1: Caretaker Status

Impacts would be the same as described for alternative 1 at Granite Park, with the following exceptions. There would be some reduction in the amount of stock traffic to the chalet, with some resultant improvement in trail conditions, but horse concession rides would continue on a regular basis from the Lake McDonald corral.

Impacts of Alternative 2: Shelter

Total visitor use in this proposal would probably be very close to that of the levels of use prior to 1992, but day use would be related to changes in overall visitation. There would be some additional sleeping space available, because the size of the staff would be greatly reduced. Visitors would be self-sufficient, and would be required to pack in their own food, cooking utensils, and sleeping gear, instead of having meals and bedding provided. This would result in a possible change in the makeup of overnight chalet visitors, as people unwilling or unable to carry or arrange for the packing of their own equipment would not use the facility. The horse concession may be permitted to pack in this equipment for visitors and daily horse concession rides would still be available from the Lake McDonald corral. Demand for chalet occupancy should be very high due to the popularity of the area, the uniqueness of the experience, and the sense of security the buildings provide in bear country.

Other impacts would be the same as described for Granite Park alternative 2, with the following exceptions. Construction of a building for composting toilets east of the existing toilets would

102 add some visual clutter to the area between the trail and the dormitory. Hikers would notice the new sand filter and bio-solids-drying box in the area below the trail in the formerly undisturbed area north and downhill of the dining room.

Projected structural repairs should improve the overall appearance and prolong the life of the buildings. If fire-safety problems on the second floor of the dormitory are not corrected, the facility could still be used, but with eight fewer rooms.

Construction work in the area projected for 1994-1995 would result in significant visual and audible disturbance from helicopter flights, generators, and other work activities. The old septic tank would be emptied, the contents flown out, and the tank and plumbing eliminated. it is expected that compost produced by the composting toilet would be packed out by stock at 2- year intervals. There would be some reduction in the amount of stock traffic to the chalet after the construction period, but horse concession rides would continue on a regular basis.

Impacts of Alternative 3: Traditional Service with Composting Toilets

Impacts would be the same as described for alternative 3 at Granite Park, with the following exceptions. The proposed new sand filter and bio-solids-drying box in the area below the trail in the formerly undisturbed area north and downhill of the dining room would be noticeable by hikers and riders. The facilities and area disturbed would be the same as for alternative 2. Supplementary power sources needed for the operation of the composting toilets and water monitoring should be solar based, and therefore quiet. Construction of a building for composting toilets east of the existing toilets would add some visual clutter to the area between the trail and the dormitory.

Construction work in the area projected for 1994-1995 would result in significant visual and audible disturbance from helicopter flights, generators, blasting, and other work activities. Some delays may occur, but no area closures are anticipated during this period. If fire-safety problems on the second floor of the dormitory are not corrected, the facility could still be used, but with eight fewer rooms available.

Impacts of Alternative 4: Traditional Service with Flush Toilets

Impacts would be similar to those described for alternative 4 at Granite Park.

The proposed new sewage treatment facilities in the area below the trail in the formerly undisturbed area north and downhill of the dining room would be noticeable by hikers and riders. These facilities and the area disturbed would be much larger than that required for the composting toilets in alternative 2 or 3. Supplementary power sources needed for the operation would be solar based, and therefore quiet. The construction of a composting toilet for early and late season use east of the current toilets would add some clutter to the area between the trail and sleeping dormitory, but would be an improvement on the pit toilet currently used.

Construction work in the area projected for 1994-1995 would result in significant visual and audible disturbance from helicopter flights, generators, blasting, and other work activities. Some delays may occur, but no area closures are anticipated during this period. If fire-safety problems on the second floor of the dormitory are not corrected, the facility could still be used, but with eight fewer rooms available.

103

CONSULTATION/COORDINATION

The following persons, organizations, and agencies were either contacted for information or assisted in identifying important issues, developing alternatives, or analyzing impacts.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Belton Chalets, Inc. Congressman Pat Williams U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Glacier National Park Foundation Glacier Park Outfitters, Inc. Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences Montana Governor's Office Montana State Historic Preservation Officer Regional Solicitor, Denver, Colorado Save the Chalets Senator Max Baucus Senator Conrad Burns Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund Wilderness Society, Northern Region

105

PREPARERS/REFERENCES

PREPARERS

The proposal, alternatives, and the environmental assessment were prepared by a multidisciplinary team consisting of the following:

Rocky Mountain Region

Christine L. Turk, Chief, Branch of Compliance/Legislation, Division of Planning and Compliance Philip J. Ayers; Environmental Engineer; Branch of Utilities, Design, and Technical Support; Division of Construction and Maintenance John T. Collins, Public Health Consultant, Division of Safety Management and Environmental Services Richard J. Cronenberger, Regional Historical Architect, Division of Cultural Resources Ronald E. Everhart, Chief, Concessions Division Richard C. Powell, Chief, Division of Safety Management and Environmental Services

Glacier National Park

Richard Peterson, Assistant Superintendent Robert Dunkley, Park Landscape Architect James Erickson, Chief of Maintenance Bruce Fladmark, Cultural Resources Specialist Steven Frye, Chief Ranger Jeffrey Harker, West Lake Utility Foreman Jan Knox, Concessions Manager Jack Potter, Assistant Chief Ranger, Field Resources James Tilmant, Chief, Division of Natural Resources Amy Vanderbilt, Public Affairs Officer

Publication services were provided by:

Linda Carlson, Editor, Division of Planning and Compliance Lori Kinser, Visual Information Specialist, Division of Planning and Compliance

107 REFERENCES

ADAAG (Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines), 1990.

BELTON CHALETS, INC. 1993a Annual Financial Reports

1993b Visitor Use Reports

DUTTON, B. L. 1993. Preliminary information on chalet inventories. Memo. Apt. To Glacier National Park. Land and Water Consul. Inc. Box 8254, Missoula, MT. 59807. 3 pp.

1993. Site evaluation and percolation test for on-site sewage disposal at Granite Park Chalet. Memo. Apt. to Glacier National Park. Land and Water Consul. Inc., Box 8254, Missoula, MT 59807, 7 pp.

GLACIER PARK FOUNDATION 1993. Memorandum on Wastewater Treatment and Future Service Levels at Granite Park Chalet and Sperry Chalet, 39 pp.

GLACIER PARK OUTFITTERS, INC. 1992a Annual Financial Reports

1992b Visitor Use Reports

HAUER, R. F. 1988. A survey of selected surface waters in Glacier National Park for septic leachates as potential contamination sources. Memo. Apt. to Glacier National Park. University of Montana, Flathead Lake Bioi. Sta., Polson, MT. 59860. 7 pp.

MACCONNEL, E. 1982. Preliminary investigation of ecological effects of sewage disposal at the backcountry chalets. Memo. Apt. to Superintendent. Glacier National Park Science Center, West Glacier, MT 59936. 30 pp. + appendices.

McCOOL, STEPHEN 1988 Estimate of Day Use, Glacier National Park. University of Montana Institute of Tourism and Recreation Research, School of Forestry, Missoula, Montana.

R. S. MEANS COMPANY, INC. 1992 Means Repair and Remodeling Cost Data; Commercial/Residential.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

1973 "Enmity and Alliance: Park Service-Concessioner Relations in Glacier National Park," by Michael Ober. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.

108 1975a Determination of Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, Granite Park Chalet, Glacier National Park. Glacier National Park, West Glacier, MT.

1975b Determination of Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, Sperry chalet, Glacier National Park. Glacier National Park, West Glacier, MT.

1984a "Preconstruction Survey of Granite Park Chalet," by Ann Johnson, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Denver, Colorado.

1984b "Preconstruction Survey of Sperry Chalet," by Melissa Connor and Doug Scott, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1985a "Historic Preservation Architectural Guide for Granite Park Chalet, Glacier National Park, Montana," by James McDonald, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Denver, Colorado.

1985b "Historic Preservation Architectural Guide for Sperry Chalet, Glacier National Park, Montana," by James McDonald, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Denver, Colorado.

1986 Concessions Management Guidelines, NPS-48. Washington Office, Washington, D.C.

1986 "Great Northern Railway Buildings, National Historic Landmark nomination," by Laura Souliere Harrison, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

1989 Memorandum, October 2, 1989, from Civil Engineer, GLAC and Regional Historical Architect, RMR, to Regional Director. Subject: Sperry Life Safety.

1992 State of Backcountry Report, Glacier National Park. Glacier National Park, West Glacier, Montana.

1993a Scoping Brochure, Management of Backcountry Chalets, Glacier National Park. Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Denver, CO.

1993b Scoping Issues/Alternatives, Management of Backcountry Chalets, Public Involvement Process. June 20, 1993, Letter from Superintendent, Glacier National Park, West Glacier, Montana.

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

1980 "Design Manual- Onsite Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems,· EPA 625/1-80- 012

109

APPENDIX 1: PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT DOCUMENTS

Public involvement activities are described in "Purpose and Need, Issues." Documents included a closure briefing paper, sent to those who wrote in about the chalet closure, the scoping brochure, and the report summarizing the information during scoping.

111

GLACIER RATIONAL PARK CHALET CLOSURE BRIEFING PAPER

This paper is an effort to a provide better understanding of reasoning behind the decision to close the Granite Park and Sperry Chalets.

The National Park Service (NPS) has the statutory responsibility and obligation to provide adequate treatment of sewage and water. The laws that pertain primarily to the NPS are the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523 as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 300f et seq.) and the Clean Water Act (P.L. 92-500 as amended, 33 u.s.c.s 1251 et seq.). The laws governing these functions are administered by the State of Montana, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences.

Due to recent changes in the laws, the sewage treatment facilities at the chalets do not comply with the letter and intent of the above laws. Park and Regional staff, the Regional Solicitor, and the U.S. Public Health Service recently met, carefully examined the condition of the existing systems and considered alternatives to bring them into compliance with existing laws. Most pertinent to operating the chalets in 1993, this examination disclosed that the leach fields used to filter effluent from the septic tanks do not function properly and fail to meet the requirements of the Federal and state laws governing discharge of sewage effluent.

After reviewing possible solutions, it became clear that no avenue existed to bring the leach fields into compliance before a July 1993 opening, even if funding were available. Replacement of the leach fields or use of some other technology is necessary and will require time and funding to plan and construct.

Therefore, the NPS will honor its statutory obligations regarding sewage treatment and temporarily close the chalets until the facilities can be brought into compliance.

Other problems left to resolve are: the handling and removal of septic tank solids, water system deficiencies, deficiencies related to fire protection, and the preservation of the historic structures.

This project has been assigned a very high regional priority for completion. The NPS' intention is to re-open the chalets. The NPS will conduct an environmental assessment in 1993, evaluating ];)OS Sible solutions to the infrastructure problems. Once a management action is chosen, we will seek funding for implementation and make the needed repairs. In the interim, a plan for custodial care of the National Landmark status chalets is being prepared.

A cautionary note -- despite a high priority, funding is currently not available to complete planning and repairs to the chalets. The following details are provided for general information and more in-depth understanding.

The backcountry chalets and their sewage and water systems were originally constructed in the early 1900's and are owned by the NPS. They have been operated, under a concession Permit with the NPS, by the Luding family since the 1950's. The current'Permit term expired December 31, 1992.

Prior to the 1992 operating season, the chalet sewage treatment systems and the draining of sewage (sludge) from the septic tanks in the fall came under scrutiny by the Wilderness Society, as represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. A Notice of Intent to file suit was submitted to the Secretary of the Interior in October 1991 to stop the NPS from continuing this practice. By virtue of a decision not to dump sewage from the septic tank, but rather to hold it over the winter for removal by other means at a later ~ate, the chalets were allowed to operate for the 1992 season. 113 During the summer of 1992 it became apparent that the leach fields used to filt~r effluent from the septic tanks did not function pro.perly, nor meet the requirements of the laws regulating discharge of sewage effluent. As stated above, the NPS has a statutory responsibility to provide adequate treatment of sewage and water systems within Glacier National Park. The laws governing these functions are administered by the State of Montana, Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. The Department is authorized under Section 75-5-613, MCA, to issue Orders requiring compliance with the Montana Water Quality Act, Title 75, Chapter 5, MCA. Discharges of the types cited are found in Sections 75-5-103, MCA; 75-5-605 (1), MCA; and 75-5-605 (2), MCA.

In late summer 1992, Park staff met with the Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences to discuss engineering alternatives solutions.

On November 3, 1992, the NPS received an Administrative Compliance Order from the State again emphasizing the poor operating condition of the chalet sewage treatment systems.

In early December, Park and Regional staff, along with a representative of the Public Health Service, met to discuss compliance with the applicable water quality laws and regulations so as to allow the chalets to open for the 1993 season. An early December decision was necessary so that action could be taken to:

1. extend the Concessioner's permit (if needed), 2. allow the Concessioner to notify potential patrons attempting to make reservations for the 1993 season, and 3. make decisions on hiring, supply purchases, etc., for continued operations.

After reviewing alternatives, the NPS determined that in order to honor its obligation to abide by the requirements of current law, the chalet operations must be closed down until the leach field problems were corrected. Since the chalets are only accessible for a few months a year, time is needed to acquire funding, complete planning, purchase and transport materials to the sites, and complete construction.

In mid-December 1992, the Park received a commitment from the NPS Regional Office to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the intention of reopening the chalets at a later date. The Assessment will consider the following:

1. A full range of alternative chalet operations, 2. the required infrastructure (sewage treatment, water, life/safety, restoration, etc.) for each alternative, and.· 3. the impacts these would have should Glacier be able to acquire funding for repair and reopening of the chalets.

Public seeping meetings will take place to identify operating alternatives under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Preparation of an Environmental Assessment is scheduled for completion by late 1993.

The estimated costs for implementation of the alternatives currently envisioned could range as high as 2.5 million dollars to provide rehabilitation that allows the chalets to operate as they have in the past as well as additional base operations funding to maintain these systems once constructed. The type of service offered in the future may vary from what was offered in the past. Economic feasibility of various operation levels will have to be considered as well as their effects on the Park's natural environment, cultural resources, and visitor experiences. 114 oot$ 3Sn 31VAI'=Id '=10.:1 Al1VN3d ss3Nisns 1VI~I.:I.:IO

8~UH~t66S 8UBIUOIN 'J8!:J819 188M liJBd IBUO!l8N .1810819 301AH3S >IH'Id 1'1NOU.\fN HOIH3.LNI3Hl :10 J.N31N.LH'Id3C S3.L\flS C3J.INn

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Management of Backcountry Chalets

Glacier National Park

Superintendent Glacier National Park West Glacier, Montana 59936-0128

115 This planning process is to determine how to manage two backcountry chalets at Glacier National Park. This brochure will provide information on issues that have arisen to date and gather public comments on the scope of the planning effort. Please take time to read the brochure and return your comments to me. LL. ?M Ll"' Superintendent

Sperry chalet was constructed in 1913 and Granite Park chalet in 1914 by the Great Northern Railway as part of a system of 7 backcountry lodging accommodations in the park. Visitor access to the chalets at that time was primarily by horseback, using an extensive network of trails. Following the construction of the Going-to-the­ Sun Road in the early 1930s and the shift to automobile use by visitors, the chalets fell into disuse and neglect. Only 2 remain, Sperry and Granite Park chalets. Until their closure in late 1992, the chalets provided meals and overnight accommodations with linen service to customers who either hiked or rode horses to them.

Sperry chalet is perched on a rocky ledge near the treeline at elevation 6,560 feet, about six miles east of the Lake McDonald Lodge developed area. Its several buildings include a dining room, hotel, and restroom. The 20 sleeping rooms accommodate 42 visitors per night, and 2,394 people stayed overnight there during the 1992 summer season.

Granite Park chalet is on an open hillside near Swiftcurrent Pass at elevation 6,640 feet, about four miles up from the Loop Trail (Packers Roost) off the Going-to-the-Sun Road, and 7.6 miles from Logan Pass on the Highline Trail. The chalet has 12 rooms that accommodate 35 overnight guests and is a popular lunch stop for hiker and horseback riders. The main building contains a restaurant and sleeping rooms. A second building has additional sleeping rooms. There is a restroom building and a double vault composting toilet. In 1992, 2,044 people stayed overnight there.

The National Park Service (NPS) has the statutory responsibility to provide adequate sewage and water treatment for the chalet operations. Due to recent changes in applicable laws, the sewage treatment facilities at the chalets no longer comply with existing laws. In 1992, NPS staff and the U.S. Public Health Service met, examined the condition of the existing systems, and considered alternatives to bring the systems into compliance. The primary concern was that the leach fields used to filter effluent from the septic tanks do not function properly and fail to meet federal and state requirements for sewage treatment.

During this review, no solutions were identified that would bring the leach fields into compliance before a July 1993 opening, even if funding were available. Replacement of the leach fields or use of some other technology is necessary and requires time and funding to plan and construct. In late 1992, NPS closed the chalets until a long-term solution can be identified and the facilities brought into compliance.

In making the decision to close the chalets, NPS considered several issues: 1) the chalets must be operated according to Montana health and safety standards, 2) substantial funds would be required to meet those standards, and 3) logistics and the climate (short summer season) would make it necessary to close the chalets to repair them, possibly for more than one season. Before making such a substantial investment of federal funds, NPS wanted to investigate a full range of alternatives for chalet operation. 116 - Need for the Project

Regulatory changes since the chalets' construction now make utility system operations complex and expensive. Both chalets have substandard sewage and water systems and inadequate life-safety facilities. These problems forced a decision not to open the chalets in 1993; this EA will be used to decide their long-term future.

ISS LieS

Initial issues identified include:

• proper treatment and discharge of sewage • water system deficiencies • fire protection and safety deficiencies • need for structural repairs and stabilization work • preservation of the historic structures • effects of sewage and water treatment solutions on natural resources, including grizzly bears • protection of wilderness values by reducing helicopter use • work on chalets is complicated by a very short construction season and complicated logistics • what level of visitor service is necessary, including day use meal service • viability of _concession operation • rehabilitation and revised operations could cause significant changes in operational costs and involve considerable construction costs • former level of service was popular with visitors; rooms were fully booked with 90-100 percent of beds taken

Alternatives

A decision needs to be reached on the appropriate level of visitor service provided before the utility system needs can be determined. Initial alternatives considered include:

• Retain the existing service (concessioner provides meals, lodging, and full linen service) • Reducing the service level (concessioner provides meals for guests only, no linen service) • Operate as limited service hostels (reservation and caretaker service provided by outside entity, guests bring own food and sleeping bags, only cooking facilities provided, no flush toilets or running water) • Operate as primitive shelters only (no beds, indoor kitchen facilities, or water provided) • Close chalets permanently (provide wayside exhibits, hitch rails, and pit toilets only)

Project Schedule (dates are targets and are subject to change) Date

Public review of seeping brochure May 1993 Analyze seeping response June 1993 Prepare draft EA · May-September 1993 Print draft EA/distribute to public · October 1993 Public review of EA November 1993 Analyze public response December 1993 Prepare decision document* December 1993 EA closeout January 1994 Prepare design documents** 1994 Construction and/or rehabilitation** 1994-1995

*If FONSI, schedule will continue as shown. If NOI to prepare an EIS, project will be rescheduled. **Time needed depends on complexity of alternative selected as proposal.

\ 117 Please respond by May 28, 1993.

Other issues you wish to see addressed or information about the project you would like to provide:

Alternatives

Are there other alternatives not listed in this brochure that you think should be addressed?

What Comes Next

Once we review the information we get from this seeping brochure, we will prepare the EA and announce its availability with a news release. After public review, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be announced in the same way. You will have a chance to review this seeping brochure and the EA.

If you wish to be on a mailing list for this project, please provide your name and address below.

118 United States Department of the Interior

:S.-\TIO:S ..U. P.-\R.K SER\ 1CE Glacter :-.iauonal Park West Glacter. ~onuna 59936 l~ REPLY R.£FtR TO J ~'L ;: 0 iS93 018 (GLAC)

Dear Planning Par~icipan~:

I want ~o thank you for your ,interest in Glacier's chalets and your participation in planning for ~heir fu~ure. I'd like ~o ~ake ~his opportuni~y to update you on ~he results of ~he recent scoping process, what the National Park Service is doing to evaluate the situation, and what you can expect ~o see in the next few months.

We r~ceived 624 writ~en comments on the chalet issue from persona and groups across the country. Two public meetings were held in May with a combined attendance of 200. The commen~s expressed an overwhelming support for the chalets as unique, historic facilities that provide a valued visitor experience that should be continued into the future if at all possible. There was a strong recognition that the sewage problems are the main issue and that they should be solved as soon and as simply as possible. Many of the respondents recommended that private involvement in funding the rehabilitation work and in operation of the chalets be utilized. Some emphasized the value of the chalets as a way for elderly, disabled or children to experience the park's backcountry without having to carry all of the equipment needed for backcountry camping. Others saw the chalets as a protection from bears or the hazards of inclement weather in the high country. A more detailed listing of new issues, concerns and alternatives is enclosed for your information.

The National Park Service is proceeding with the preparation of an environmental assessment for the management of the chalets this summer. We expect completion of the document by late fall. Our plan, at this time, is to send a summary letter to everyone on our mailing list and a copy of the environ•ental assessaent to those who request it. The document will be available for a 45- day review period, after which an alternative will be selected and detailed designs will be prepared for implementation of a solution.

Funding has been proposed by the Congress for planning and rehabilitation of the chalets utility systems. We are gratified to have this support and feel that, if passed by the Congress, it will enable us to begin design and some of the rehabilitation work next summer. This will provide for reopening the chalets as soon as possible.

119 ~han~s aga~n for your par:icipacion and hel? i~ chis i~por:a~: ~anageme~t issue at Glac~~r National Park. I encourage you :~ keep involved in che planning process ani we ;.;elcome suggestions and com~e~ts.

S~ncerely,

H. Gilbert Lusk Superincendenc

Enclosure

120 ~ANAGE~ENT OF BACKCOUNTRY CHALE7S

SCOPING ISSUES/ALTERNATIVES

PUBLIC !~VO~VE~EST PROCESS

The oublic involvement process ~as started on Dece~ber 7, L992, ~ith the publication of a news release announcing chat t~e chalets would ~e closed for the 1993 season and giving che rationale for this. r~~ediately after the news release, i~terested persons ~egan to write to the park expressing thetr opinions and requesting ~ore information on the issue. The park prepared a two-page briefing statement and responded to over 150 such requests. During February 1993, the park responded to several requests from organized groups for information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. In early May a 45- day seeping period began and a seeping newsletter was advertised in the media and mailed to persons and groups on the project mailing list. To date, 624 written responses were received as a result of this effort. Late in May two public seeping meetings were held, one at Kalispell and one at Helena, Montana. They were attended by a total of 200 persons. As a result of the large volume of correspondence and comments received at the meetings, the National Park Service extended the scopins period for t•o additional weeks, until June 11, 1993.

The following concerns/misconceptions were identified durinl the seeping process:

1. Many respondents don't understand and/or asree with the decision to close the chalets in 1993.

2. Some respondents feel that sewage treataent/disposal is the only problem and the planning process should not be confused by adding water system, life-safety and historic resource isaues.

3. Some feel that increasing the fees that the NPS charges the concessioner to use the chalets, or increasing park gate receipts and infusing this aoney into the chalet operation is the answer to the probleas.

4. Soae respondents feel that more money should be char1ed for stays at the chalets and that the additional revenues would support the construction and operation of an iaproved sewa1e system.

S. Many people feel that the park should take the funds used to run other park operations, and use them for the chalets.

6. Many people don't understand the large voluae of effluent that would have to be treated in an improved sewage systea.

7. Many respondents feel that the level of services should not be considered as a part of the planning. 121 The following new issues were raised:

L. There is a feeling chat public hea::h s:A~~3~is shJ~~~ a??lY co chis kind of facility and that a~ exe~p:~o~ of 50 ~~ svr: s~ould ~e granted for the oper~tion of th~ se~a~e systems a: the chalets.

2. ~any respondents stated that the positive aspects of the chalet operation, such as fostering an overnight backcountry type experience for people who c~n't pack their gear in, ou~weigh th~ negative ones, such as increasing impacts to wildlife and vegetation.

3. Many respondents feel that the chalets provide safety and sanctuary from bears and inclement weather in the backcountry.

4. The chalets provide a certain level of service and access to the backcountry for the disabled, elderly and children.

5. Many respondents suggested that we study how backcountry chalets are managed at other areas around the country and world, and try to learn from their experiences.

6. Several respondents pointed out that the chalets provide an historic experience or tradition for visitors.

Suggestions from the public for new alternative• and optiona were:

1. Operate each chalet to a different service level.

2. Impose hiking fees to the chalets.

3. Give the concessioner a longer-term lease.

4. Eliminate flush toilets.

5. Use propane-aaaisted composting toileta.

6. Use a different kind of composting aystea aimilar to the ones used at Yoaeaite and North Cascades National Parka.

7. Remove all trace of the chalets.

8. Add on to the existing chalets.

9. Add more chalets at other locations.

122 APPENDIX 2: COST COMPARISON BY ALTERNATIVE

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Caretaker Shelter Traditional Traditional Status Service with Service with Composting Flush Toilets Toilets GRANITE PARK Gross Construction Costs Stabilization $65,500 $419,200 $419,200 $419,200 Health/life safety $13,100 $104,800 $104,800 $104,800 improvements Water /sewage $252,175 $1,273,844 $1,273,844 $890,538 improvements Advance and Project $202,600 $202,600 $202,600 Planning Costs TOTAL PROJECT $330,775 $2,000,444 $2,000,444 $1,617,138 COSTS Operation and $44,850 $50,250 $50,250 $44,850 Maintenance Costs

SPERRY Gross Construction Costs Stabilization $65,500 $417,890 $417,890 $417,890 Health/life safety $13,100 $437,540 $437,540 $437,540 improvements

Water /sewage $252,175 $1 '154,241 $1,154,241 $1 '122,539 improvements Advance and Project $175,600 $175,600 $175,600 Planning Costs TOTAL PROJECT $330,775 $2,185,271 $2,185,271 $2,153,569 COSTS Operation and $44,850 $50,250 $50,250 $44,850 Maintenance Costs TOTAL PROJECT $661,550 $4,185,715 $4,185,715 $3,770,707 COSTS- BOTH CHALETS

------~------~-~------~------~ -~---~- ~ 123

APPENDIX 3: OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS BY ALTERNATIVE

GRANITE PARK

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4

Level of Service NPS caretaker provided to NPS employee provided to Traditional services Traditional services maintain facilities. No use maintain facilities. Facilities provided:overnight lodging provided: Overnight of facilities by the public, open for use by the public with bedding, food servioe lodging with bedding, food with the exception of as an overnight shelter, by for guests and a Ia carte service for guests and a Ia composting toilets. Day reservation. No food food service from noon to carte food service from users would likely picnic in service provided, but 5:00 p.m. for day users. noon to 5:00 p.m. for day and explore the area. overnight public allowed to Employees live on site and users. Employees live on use cooking area. Beds provided shower facilities. site and provided shower may be provided but no Composting toilets provided facilities. Flushing toilets sleeping bags or bedding. for all users. and running water provided to guests in rest room facilities.

Operator NPS caretaker NPS maintenance person 7 NPS maintenance person 7 NPS maintenance person 7 days per week and contract days per week and contract days per week and contract operator for reservation operator for provision of all operator for provision of all system and oversight at services. services. chalet.

On-Site Employees 1.5 NPS positions x 3 to 4 1.5 NPS positions x 3 to 4 1.5 NPS positions x 3 to 4 1.5 NPS positions x 3 to 4 months (housed in months (housed in months (Housed in months (Housed in converted rest room converted rest room converted rest room converted guest room. building). building.) building. Meals provided by Meals provided by contract contract operator.) operator.)

Contract operator: 1.5 to 2 Contract operator: 9 to ·10 Contract operator: 9 to 10 people x 2.5 months (plus employees x 2.5 months employees x 2.5 months staff to administer (plus staff to administer (plus staff to administer reservation service). reservation service). reservation service).

Maintenance NPS: all NPS: Operation and NPS: Operation and NPS: Operation and Responsibilities monitoring of water system, monitoring of water system, monitoring of water system, toilets, and disposal system. toilets, and disposal system. toilets, and disposal system.

Contract operator: Contract operator: ContraCt operator: Housekeeping on toilets and Housekeeping on toilets and Housekeeping of toilets and facilities and routine facilities and maintenanoe of facilities and maintenance of maintenance on facilities. all structures. Assists with all structures. Assists with maintenance of toilets. maintenance of toilets.

125 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4

Supply and hauling NPS: All NPS: NPS employee NPS: NPS employee NPS: NPS employee responsibilities supplies, and all associated supplies, and all associated supplies and all associated with waste disposal system. with waste disposal system. with waste disposal system. Contract operator provides Contract operator provides meals for employees. meals for employees.

Day users pack out what Contract Operator: Contract operator: All Contract operator: All they pack in. Employee supplies, and all supplies associated with supplies associated with associated with overnight operation of chalets. operation of chalets. guest operations.

Annual NPS cost for $44,850 $50,250 $50,250 $44,650 operation of system (Labor and Supplies)

(Funding Source) New allocations, New allocations, New allocations, New allocations, redistribution from existing redistribution from existing redistribution from existing redistribution from existing park programs, or park programs, or park programs, or park programs, or concession fees. concession fees. concession fees. concession fees.

Economic Feasibility for N/A Feasible, with appropriate Feasible, with appropriate Feasible, with appropriate Contract Operator rates charged rates charged rates charged

126 SPERRY

ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4

Level of Service NPS caretaker provided to NPS employee provided to Traditional services Traditional services maintain facilities. No use maintain facilities. Facilities provided: overnight lodging provided: Overnight of facilities by the public, open for use by the public with bedding, food servioa lodging with bedding, food with the exception of as an overnight shelter, by for guests and a Ia carte service for guests and a Ia composting toilets. Day reservation. No food food service from noon to carte food service from users would likely picnic in service provided, but 5:00 p.m. for day users. noon to 5:00 p.m. for day and explore the area. overnight public allowed to Employees live on site and users. Employees live on use cooking area. Beds provided shower facilities. site and provided shower may be provided but no Composting toilets provided facilities. Flushing toilets sleeping bags or bedding. for all users. and running water provided to guests in rest room facilities.

Operator NPS Caretaker. NPS maintenance person 7 NPS maintenance person 7 NPS maintenance person 7 days per week and contract days per week and contract days per week and contract operator for reservation operator for provision of .all operator for provision of all system and oversight at services. services. chalet.

On-Site Employees 1.5 NPS positions x 3 to 4 1.5 NPS positions x 3 to 4 1.5 NPS positions x 3 to 4 1.5 NPS positions x 3 to 4 months (housed in months (housed in months (Housed in months (Housed in converted rest room converted rest room converted rest room converted guest room. building). building). building. Meals provided by Meals provided by contract contract operator.) operator).

Contract operator: 1.5 to 2 Contract operator: 9 to 10 Contract operator: 9 to 10 people x 2.5 months (plus employees x 2.5 months employees x 2.5 months staff to administer (plus staff to administer (plus staff to administer reservation service). reservation service). reservation service).

Maintenance NPS: all NPS: Operation and NPS: Operation and NPS: Operation and Responsibilities monitoring of water system, monitoring of water system, monitoring of water system, toilets, and disposal system. toilets, and disposal system. toilets, and disposal system.

Contract operator: Contract operator: Contract operator: Housekeeping on toilets and Housekeeping on toilets and Housekeeping of toilets and facilities and routine facilities and maintenance of facilities and maintenance of maintenance on facilities. all structures. Assists with all structures. Assists with maintenance of toilets. maintenance of toilets.

127 ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4

Supply and hauling NPS: All NPS: NPS employee NPS: NPS employee NPS: NPS employee responsibilities supplies, and all associated supplies, and all associated supplies, and all associated with waste disposal system. with waste disposal system. with waste disposal system. Contract operator provides Contract operator provides meals for employees. meals for employees.

Day users pack out what Contract Operator: Contract operator: All Contract operator: All they pack in. Employee supplies, and all supplies associated with supplies associated with associated with overnight operation of chalets. operation of chalets. guest operations.

Annual NPS cost for $44,850 $50,250 $50,250 $44,850 operation of system (Labor and Supplies)

(Funding Source) New allocations, New allocations, New allocations, New allocations, redistribution from existing redistribution from existing redistribution from existing redistribution from existing park programs, or park programs, or park programs, or park programs, or concessioner fees. concessioner fees. concessioner fees. concessioner fees.

Economic Feasibility for N/A Feasible, with appropriate Feasible, with appropriate Feasible, with appropriate Contract Operator rates charged rates charged rates charged

128 NPS D-272 llttllltltltltl~~~m~ill~it~,i~tlltllttllllttlDSC000786